Subtype me (niffer)

Screw it. I’m just going to go with SLE-H and leave the rest up for others to interpret on their own.

We know:
- As far as I can tell myself (and there’s reasonable feedback from others to suggest I’m being objective enough) I fit 100% of the SLE-Se subtype descriptions written by Meged-Ovcharov and DarkAngelFireWolf69
- I definitely fit SLE-H the most, yet this is an introverted subtype
- But, DarkAngelFireWolf69 is a dingus


I also know one SLE off the top of my head who fits the SLE-Ti description much better than I do. However, he is much less conscientious than I am and more or less a complete dingus. So no I don’t think that whatever these subtype descriptions are describing would match up adequately with things like contact sub boosting Te, Ti and Ni necessarily. I don’t agree with the premise of subtype theory itself still. It’s inadequate and not descriptive enough for the majority of people IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Strange

Personally, I believe that types are analog, not digital, and that there is a smooth gradation from one type to another. So perhaps you are really just right in the middle. Or you could be an SLE-Se who is also amazingly logical.

---

Please see my post above Adam.

have you decided?

Hm, I admit I wrote my first comments without being fully aware of the DCHN profiles, and after reading them I could see how you behave SLE/H. The thing though is that I suspect a SLE/H must be a contact sub, because of the laws of the model etc, so I can see how one could be SLE-Ti/H, but not how one could be SLE-Se/H.

I agree though that you have enhanced Se, reason why I suggested a C sub first... but I'm really lost with this tbh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

"Se-subs can almost resemble a Fe-EIE at times, and become randomly romantic an elevated due to extra emphasis on Fe HA."

I do have this.

Idk, what would you say silke?

---

I haven't really noticed it. The way you talk about relationships is rather matter-of-fact, brisk way, and you don't resemble a Fe-EIE even in those instances.

There is another point that hints at a rational sub is your dislike of people being vague and wishy-washy in their responses, which shows a certain degree of accentuation of rationality and a dislike of emphasized irrationality, but irrationality is a characteristic of both SLE-Ses and IEI-Nis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silke

I haven't really noticed it. The way you talk about relationships is rather matter-of-fact, brisk way, and you don't resemble a Fe-EIE even in those instances.

There is another point that hints at a rational sub is your dislike of people being vague and wishy-washy in their responses, which shows a certain degree of accentuation of rationality and a dislike of emphasized irrationality, but irrationality is a characteristic of both SLE-Ses and IEI-Nis.

---

I see. I guess I don’t really do it on here, but I do have a lot of manic excited happy moments where I let loose a lot.

I disagree with linking a “chaotic” type of irrationality to the inert subs necessarily, as Se is also essentially grounded, and Ni is essentially passive/contained.

@silke I actually thought of moments when I do the Fe-EIE thing on here: when I hit on Dingu. Just look at his profile wall for proof: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...u2=7615&page=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

So for those who labeled me SLE-Ti @FDG @Myst @Adam Strange @HERO @ooo @Kara , how would you explain how I’ve been able to identify with the entire SLE-Se description above, word for word (except for feeling like I “need competition”), while objectively identifying with less of the SLE-Ti descriptions? Am I just evaluating myself wrong or do you think the descriptions are ultimately inadequate? Because if you see me as SLE-Ti then those are the only two options here.

If you feel like answering that is.

---

I marked some of @Myst's posts as constructive, because I thought they provided some detailed information and reasoning. I would be more than happy to analyze your type, but due to my lack of knowledge I wouldn't trust my ability to type properly. Just look at my thread, it's a huge mess.

I wish you'll come to a conclusion though that will answer to your question, or just make you feel content. :content:

If I ever get there though, and feel confident enough about my knowledge, I'll share my conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

I disagree with linking a “chaotic” type of irrationality to the inert subs necessarily, as Se is also essentially grounded, and Ni is essentially passive/contained.

---

Irrationality is linked not to "inert subs" but to irrational subs. Irrational subs like Se-SLE and Ni-IEI have more irrationality going for them. That's just how socionics is. I don't see the point of disagreeing or arguing with this, unless you want to flip socionics fundamentals upside down.

Come to think of it we've had very few SLE-Ses stick around here. Perhaps this forum is too small of a world for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

@silke I actually thought of moments when I do the Fe-EIE thing on here: when I hit on Dingu. Just look at his profile wall for proof: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...u2=7615&page=1

---

That sort of convo is what I meant by brisk. The the focus is still on the "I", introverted judgement - I want to, so I hit on him - but are you adjusting to his responses to this whole thing?

@silke lol, I was referring to the SLE/IEI examples you were using.

I don’t see a problem in disagreeing with the fundamentals, especially for the reasons I mentioned. Also for these subtypes you’ll note that an equal amount of rational and irrational IEs are boosted/repressed for each of the subtypes, further negating the idea that irrational subtypes are somehow more irrational etc.

Also adjusting to Dingu’s responses (almost none) would be more like Ni lol.

On that note though one thing that I do do on here that’s kind of towards more irrationality is how I make multiple posts in a row without really giving a shit.

I also have been the top shouter in the shoutbox by far for the last couple of months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

how would you explain how I’ve been able to identify with the entire SLE-Se description above, word for word

---

Your opinion about yourself is not much stable (you thought previously yourself as NF type) and hence should not be trusted much.
Your type is not SLE, but you do not see this now. Like other ones with wrong opinions about types. IR may show you your type, they are harder to fool yourself.

While subtypes is heretic bs to forget.

You are too cute for SLE. It's evident for me. Your communication style, your nonverbal - it's not what man-like (in my perception) SLE women are. You are not simple and straight, what T-S types are. You are other.

:lol: “heretic bs”

@niffer More than half of people seem to have no discernible sub-type meaning that they employ an approximate equal balance of input and output processes; those who have difficulty determining a sub-type usually fall into this category.

a.k.a. I/O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rebelondeck

@niffer More than half of people seem to have no discernible sub-type meaning that they employ an approximate equal balance of input and output processes; those who have difficulty determining a sub-type usually fall into this category.

a.k.a. I/O

---

Email this to Poolenko with a google translate link, along with a dickpic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

Screw it. I’m just going to go with SLE-H and leave the rest up for others to interpret on their own.

We know:
- As far as I can tell myself (and there’s reasonable feedback from others to suggest I’m being objective enough) I fit 100% of the SLE-Se subtype descriptions written by Meged-Ovcharov and DarkAngelFireWolf69
- I definitely fit SLE-H the most, yet this is an introverted subtype
- But, DarkAngelFireWolf69 is a dingus


I also know one SLE off the top of my head who fits the SLE-Ti description much better than I do. However, he is much less conscientious than I am and more or less a complete dingus. So no I don’t think that whatever these subtype descriptions are describing would match up adequately with things like contact sub boosting Te, Ti and Ni necessarily. I don’t agree with the premise of subtype theory itself still. It’s inadequate and not descriptive enough for the majority of people IMO.

---

Yeah H is solid for you.

I don't buy the idea on a strengthened Ego function boosting other functions according to any kind of rule but 2-subtype system (strictly keeping it to Ego) seems good to me. I even have a little theory on it for myself actually regarding organization of Ego functions with different subtypes (this goes a bit beyond original Socionics model - I mentioned a bit of it to you before I think?). Personally extremely useful too, you could say, I wouldn't have such a clear type without it... Sure I'd still be able to decide I'm LSI>SLE but it's way easier with this subtype theory...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

If it’s the Forer effect then that’s about me assessing myself inaccurately. Everything else is description related problems you’ve mentioned. So you’re saying it could be both I guess.

---

Forer is actually a problem with descriptions having silly generic stuff. OK so you say the Se sub stuff is all the time... OK there is the question of how exactly you interpreted the description. Have you seen earlier where I said SLE-Se is "SLE-Ti's have bursts of the emotionality while SLE-Se's are constantly having something about being very sensory-emotional-immersed in the world". This is what I don't see with you *constantly* and I don't know if you interpret the Se desc that way at all.

BTW I agree with silke on how you seem more determinate and to the point and actually blunt & matter-of-fact a lot more than SLE-Se. It is something I feel close to myself bc all that is Ti to me lol. Though you also get to show the 4D Te pretty clearly in the background with high logical pragmatism. (That's the part where I don't feel as much commonality with ExTx, not that I mind ofc.)

Actually, if you want to read the posts of an SLE-Se girl, maybe @Ananke 's posts are still around...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sol

Your opinion about yourself is not much stable (you thought previously yourself as NF type) and hence should not be trusted much.
Your type is not SLE, but you do not see this now. Like other ones with wrong opinions about types. IR may show you your type, they are harder to fool yourself.

While subtypes is heretic bs to forget.

You are too cute for SLE. It's evident for me. Your communication style, your nonverbal - it's not what man-like (in my perception) SLE women are. You are not simple and straight, what T-S types are. You are other.

---

:lol: I find SLE-Se girls pretty feely, SLE-Ti girls too when they go Fe :) Really I still think you are confusing the Fe HA for NF :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

@silke I actually thought of moments when I do the Fe-EIE thing on here: when I hit on Dingu. Just look at his profile wall for proof: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...u2=7615&page=1

---

This is a very good example for what I see as SLE-Ti's erratic bursts of emotionality. It does get intense as an interesting contrast to the Ti default lol

I just enjoy how much varied responses I’m getting from people, stirring up shit too. I hope both sides think of the others as fucking idiots lolol. It’s also the reason why I decided to be born biracial.

The system is fucked up bullshit. All hail Dingu, who sacrificed his brain for our sociosins. Let us break this watermelon and eat it together, and have some of this grape beverage to eat his flesh and blood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

All hail Dingu, who sacrificed his brain for our sociosins. Let us break this watermelon and eat it together, and have some of this grape beverage to eat his flesh and blood.

---

Yeah good plan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

On that note though one thing that I do do on here that’s kind of towards more irrationality is how I make multiple posts in a row without really giving a shit.

---

We had several posters in the habit of making multiple posts in a row, including Maritsa whom most type as a rational type (EII/EIE/ESE) and Gilly whom most typed as EIE. In fact it is a trait of strongly rational types to keep pulling ahead like a freight train and forget to re-adjust and readapt. Reminds me of my irrational sub ex who used to complain about his LIE-Te mom driving in one straight line and expecting others to get out of her way :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sol

Your opinion about yourself is not much stable (you thought previously yourself as NF type) and hence should not be trusted much.

---

Au contraire, her opinion of herself is quite stable. What is not stable is your mindset, neither the ability to listen to others has taken any root, which results in some egregious mistypes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sol

You are too cute for SLE. It's evident for me.

---

Sol's typings at their brightest.

You know you're too cute for a LSE typing yourself :love2::love2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silke

Au contraire, her opinion of herself is quite stable.

---

It's not in general, as she changed her opinion about own type several times and the current her opinion differs from the previous one strongly (NF -> TS).
For example, I never changed the opinion about own type. I was not sure and after have become such - it stayed the same for all the time >15 years.
She may say how long she thought herself by other types to give you more clear understanding.

She's evidenly not SLE. SLE look weird for me as women. While she's funny and cute - what I get from F types, often from IEI. Her nonverbal is also not what SLE have. Nothing is about SLE in her, despite the word in the profile and conformistic agreements from incompetent ones who rationalize mistakes by heresies and by the ingoring the common logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silke

You know you're too cute for a LSE typing yourself :love2::love2:

---

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :char:

@Sol Actually this description for ESTps says: “Females often have a fragile appearance.”

http://www.socionics.com/prof/estp.htm

Some other articles have said the Se subtype females also have an “appealing” appearance.

Anyway it’s been interesting to me how forum members’ impressions of me have been more or less split down the middle with regard to more Se vs. more Ti (it doesn’t take a genius to see what these things are so member tenureship shouldn’t matter here either).

More than coming to a conclusion about myself, I wanted to demonstrate and conclusively expose the potential problems that surface in typing with the theory, putting it to the test through the many varied typing methods of different forum members here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

Actually this description for ESTps says: “Females often have a fragile appearance.”

---

I'm not about bodies, but impressions. SLE woman have no your the mentioned above traits as I perceive them. I was mostly about your T/F difference.
About "fragile appearance". Bodies have no relation to Jung's types and SLE should to have bodies like any other types. But SLE women do not give the impression of "fragile" ones being base S. They have good body control and are assured in physical. And it's the most man-like type in my perception of the types. You are far from this perception. Your smile reminds NF types.
There were reasons you thought yourself as NF types in the past. SLE does not fit you. Ethical type you are.

> Some other articles have said the Se subtype females also have an “appealing” appearance.

There are beautiful people in any types. I'm not about your appearance.
As for appealing, - this relates to IR strongly. SLE are too man-like for my type, like probably LSE women for SLE men would be.
The main difference - your emotional behavior. It reminds Fe types. You seem softer than EIE are, more flexible. IEI fits you the best from what I see. Also after your photos, and then the words about thinking as NF previously.

Whatever @Sol you yourself are a heretic, just admit it. :lol:

Also @Sol how can you say “bodies have no relation to Jung’s types” and then in the next sentence and for the rest of your post go on to talk about physical attributes of different types? So self-contradictory lmao.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

Whatever Sol you yourself are a heretic, just admit it. :lol:

---

ok :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

how can you say “bodies have no relation to Jung’s types” and then in the next sentence and for the rest of your post go on to talk about physical attributes of different types?

---

I talked about impressions from the behavior, including nonverbal.
While body's look, its appearance - does not relate to types. The form does not relate. How it moves - relates.
For example, you may find thin SLE, - but you'll not get the impression "he's fragile". He's not - as he uses what has excellently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sol

I talked about impressions from the behavior, including nonverbal.
While body's look, its appearance - does not relate to types. The form does not relate. How it moves - relates.
For example, you may find thin SLE, - but you'll not get the impression "he's fragile". He's not - as he uses what has excellently.

---

That’s just your opinion.

You’re not a socionics authority, so don’t try to act like it.

And P.S. I am pretty masculine by several objective measures. I have long feet, a long ring finger-pointer finger ratio, wide shoulders, small facial features, short chin, fine hair, and am left-handed. These all point to high prenatal exposure to testosterone. In addition, in those pictures that you’ve seen of me I’m 165 lbs / 75kg and am considered overweight by BMI; I have a naturally high muscle mass without working out and I’ve always been this way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sol

I'm not about bodies, but impressions. SLE woman have no your the mentioned above traits as I perceive them. I was mostly about your T/F difference.
About "fragile appearance". Bodies have no relation to Jung's types and SLE should to have bodies like any other types. But SLE women do not give the impression of "fragile" ones being base S. They have good body control and are assured in physical. And it's the most man-like type in my perception of the types. You are far from this perception. Your smile reminds NF types.
There were reasons you thought yourself as NF types in the past. SLE does not fit you. Ethical type you are.

> Some other articles have said the Se subtype females also have an “appealing” appearance.

There are beautiful people in any types. I'm not about your appearance.
As for appealing, - this relates to IR strongly. SLE are too man-like for my type, like probably LSE women for SLE men would be.
The main difference - your emotional behavior. It reminds Fe types. You seem softer than EIE are, more flexible. IEI fits you the best from what I see. Also after your photos, and then the words about thinking as NF previously.

---

SLE women (even Ti subtype) demonstrate way more emotional expressions than LSI men... so sure, relative to that the Fe can seem like an Ethical type's to you if only superficially viewing it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

That’s just your opinion.

---

I see that you have no contrarguments and have switched to general philosophy and demagogy about formal statuses (which in speculative still Socionics are objectively close to nothing at anyone, anyway). Ok, I'll comment this.

This switch by you is done from concrete to much more abstract theme what points on your N type.
You also try to protect by senseless (and inappropriate for the situation) demand of formal authority to influence on you, what points on your Ti in childish state of superid and hence your Fe type.

Your "authorities" in Socionics are speculative fantasers where have no objective basis. Their opinion may be doubted easily. They say a lot of baseless bs, the example of which you said above about Se types often giving fragile impression (you may notice at my base Se women examples how "fragile" they look lol).

It's not "just". My opinion is based on the reason, the knowledge and positive experience in using the typology. The similar opinion you may get from others, so it's not only my too. So your assertion is wrong from logical side. I suspect it's done under your arised emotions - you disliked something. Here you show your weak T and the inclination to F in arguing instead of logics.

> You’re not a socionics authority, so don’t try to act like it.

Be reasonable and don't make senseless demands.

To act like "authority" is to express own opinion as assured. I do such where have reasonable basis for this with my knowledge and experience for the discussed questions. Unlike you with T region doubts and fears, I may trust to my own thinking and logical conclusions - as they are often correct. You have the fear of my Te arguments, try to reject them with the appelation to your valued and naive Ti. The knowledge and experience is what makes me free from your childish need for the "authorities" or naive trust to them in the typology. That's why I trust to myself in some questions.

I understand that your archaic and childish thinking has troubles in geting all this. How other ones can be assured in own opinions based on own thinking and expriences. You do not trust to such approach. You want a magical paper where will be written formal status for trusting. Or there is wide known name. Then you agree to trust to any alogical bs those sources will say you. To reject that bs - you need to use own T, but you affraid of this. To accept my logical arguments - is also the need of your T process.
Just do this - think on your own. Try to reject my arguments only from logical side if you can, not by emotional appealing to formal statuses [which in Socionics have very low objective basis]. If you can't do this then you see that I'm correct. And that some "authority" site have said the opposite means nothing, - it's about logics and reality, but not statuses.

Some incompetent "authority" have leaded you to think SLE as your type. You are not the 1st which have lost in the typology. You know Chae and Owl which have accepted my opinion. They just made own thinking, and I've helped them in this. The initial reaction was negative like at you as I'm not a formal authority, it's important for Fe people. Besides those 2 in the last year there were others too and will be. To be able to think and to trust yourself you do need the papers with formal statuses. Be the authority for yourself, it's your life - rule it by your weak regions too, study to trust yourself there too, step-by-step - use and improve them. Or will stay with delusions to fix which you have everything.

Forget about the "authorities" in Socionics. Doubt in anything without good experimental basis.

I see the question as the discussed and finished, as there were no logical arguments from your side.

You need to understand your type.
Subtypes accentuations is not classical typology and has no good theory for the usage.

r e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

niffer is just Te PoLR and seeking dat SLE Se by being so provocative. She also has difficulties understanding things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Singu

niffer is just Te PoLR and seeking dat SLE Se by being so provocative. She also has difficulties understanding things.

---

Dingu :love:

niffer just start acting like SLE should have and tell what you think and I don't mind if you swear a bit. You are too nice to be believed to be SLE ;-) You need to finish this IEI image. Go get them.

SLE-Ti. That's my gut feeling. Idk, you seem composed and articulate to me which I just associate with a more introverted and rational subtype.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mio Q

SLE-Ti. That's my gut feeling. Idk, you seem composed and articulate to me which I just associate with a more introverted and rational subtype.

---

Thanks Mio

@Sol it's not like you are the only one person ever on Socionics forums who bases opinion in reason and experience. (Even if it's the LSI type that's described that way...) And I don't see anyone else typing niffer as IEI so I don't know what similar opinion she would be getting "from others" lol. You may be basing your opinion on reason+experience but you got stuck on details without checking for more variables at first. It does happen even to the best of us though.
And some of it you most certainly did not base on reason or experience, but speculation like you speculating about niffer wanting some magical paper despite her consistently behaving and talking in a very different way from that. And senseless demand?!...

@Myst the only magical paper that I’ll need is something to wipe Sol’s poo off from my thread with

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

I've considered EIE (or, less likely, IEI) for you before for several reasons, e.g how you describe yourself as reclusive. But I think the way you tend to lash out at people at the worst possible times tends to point more towards weak Fi. When EIEs get mad it's usually still in line with their social agenda. You described your agenda before as something like "maybe if I berate this person enough they will stop being wrong and/or fix their pathetic life" - it's a bit more, uh, direct.

---

It's nice of you to ignore her logical issues to support the possibility of T type, which you rejected before. And that Fe types may also behave against nonvalued Fi, especially where they do not care about relations and having evident emotional issues like her which lead to some hooliganism.