What is my Type?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Nexus]

I'm almost sure you are ENTJ. Your eyes in those films show an extrovert, you're interested in the audience reactions. Your accent on qualification also reminds my of an ENTJ, surely a judging person. I wouldn't type you as an ENTP, their (our ) merit is their abilities to improvise spontaneously rather than being qualified. And about INTJs, they usually have a narrower sphere of interests and also really DON'T manage so well to handle social situations.

ENTJ's are born explorers with the purpose of bringing light to every unknown place, you look like one.
Your "introverted" behavior could be a way you learned to be more successful.

Right. I strongly disagree you'd be a Sensing type. Very low chance to be Percieving, too.

You are very perceptive; I have actually considered LIE with a dominant Ni subtype on the recommendation of a friend. Thank you for your opinion, it was very informative. Also:

From Rick DeLong's New Socionic Test Online:

LIE Your result
ILE These types might also be considered
LII
LSE
ILI These types are not very likely
SLE
LSI
EIE
SLI These types are quite unlikely
IEE
EII
ESE
IEI These types are extremely unlikely
SEE
ESI
SEI

From rmcnew's MBTI Picture Test:

ENTJ

E = 6
I = 2
N = -1
S = -3
T = 1
F = -3
J = -2
P = -4
3
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
2
1

1

[JuJu]

LIE's have Si PoLR... Does that seem accurate to you?

To be honest, it was difficult for me to glean anything from that video... If you're open about yourself, your opinions in the videos, it makes it much easier... the longer the better too, b/c patterns of behavior/thoughts emerge... That makes it easier to ID your type.

So yeah, if you have time and want to, could you do a video where you talk for awhile about whatever topic, and just be as natural as possible? You will get some better feedback that way... You could do what TBone did and take a bunch of short videos, w/e, same result.

[Nexus]

LIE's have Si PoLR... Does that seem accurate to you?

To be honest, it was difficult for me to glean anything from that video... If you're open about yourself, your opinions in the videos, it makes it much easier... the longer the better too, b/c patterns of behavior/thoughts emerge... That makes it easier to ID your type.

So yeah, if you have time and want to, could you do a video where you talk for awhile about whatever topic, and just be as natural as possible? You will get some better feedback that way... You could do what TBone did and take a bunch of short videos, w/e, same result.

I am not entirely sure about my PoLR. People usually don't pick up a lot of information about me by just watching me, so here is a fairly long excerpt from a critique I wrote (and felt strongly about - the entire thing is 17 pages long) about Karl Popper's ideology for a course on the Theory of Knowledge; hopefully it will shed some light among which of the NT types I am (if you have any questions about my position, don't hesitate to ask them)...

Having been more of a solipsist than an excessively indulgent skeptic, I loathe to sympathize with the ever-enduring plight of criterion-seekers. However, I must conclude that if there is some method for efficiently accrediting a format for hypotheses, it is not to be found here. Lakatos seemed to realize this reality to some extent in the promotion of a vague scheme of progressive science, one that is tolerant of the many possibilities open to empirical verification (while Popper thinks nothing of “eliminating many bad theories, and inventing many new ones” in a process he likens to survival of the fittest, Lakatos recognizes the reluctance of scientists to simply “abandon a theory merely because facts contradict it” in attachment to their long-favored implements of perception) and less forgiving of the semantics and sophistry required for justifying a dissociated instance of falsification. Though Lakatos may be somewhat blind to the general incentive for scientific inquiry (he admits this in his opening statement), Popper’s reduced and axiomatic adulation of science fails to capture much of its own influence in the many branches of study.

[Nexus]

I personally believe that Popper is not consistent in his definitions- he must realize that falsifiable claims are in fact only partially so as they are simultaneously unfalsifiable due to the necessary inclusion of overlooked assumptions (including a priori deductions applied in the design of the probing utensil and the inductive classification of data readings that is the inconceivable demarcation of verisimilitude…the often overlooked but actual subject of the hypothesis). An unfalsified method of holistically evaluating scientific falsifiabilities will quickly fall prey to an infinite regression of arbitrary inclination in this manner, leaving Popper’s reduced claim for the justification of a criterion of demarcation seemingly quite irrefutable in itself (at least by finite or simplified methods). In addition, any pseudoscience can arbitrarily select some illusory condition for falsifiability, and even a credible falsifier might simply represent a potential mechanism for altering the initiation of processes described successfully by the theory and not the failure of the theory in describing ontological events (for example the effects of gravity on particles otherwise described by theories of electromagnetic interaction; in actuality the most accurate and complete formulations of gravity and electromagnetism, general relativity and quantum electrodynamics, respectively, are quite incompatible for simultaneous cross-reference, and so are both responsible for fundamental commonalities that are considered anomalous within the other framework). If this is the case, then the initiative to progress scientifically depends on an elucidation of the experimental record concerning factors represented in the theory as well as factors that might simply cause an aberration of perception. Popper’s criterion does not recognize this elucidation, though it does engage in ad hominem circumstantiae- immediately attributing the blame to the individual when his theory does not immediately meet empirical standards by claiming that his own original formulation and subsequent adaptations must be less or even not “scientific”, while exempting identical but independently formulated modifications from besmirchment. As Popper said of Hume (the anti-rationalist), I will say of Popper: “[He] never accepted the full force of his own logical analysis”. Popper states that “a critical attitude needs for its raw material, as it were, theories or beliefs which are held more or less dogmatically”, a clause he expounds upon in asserting that science originally must use previously existing myths as the subject of improvement. In this instance science is distinguished from pre-scientific activities not by refutability but by a critical expectation towards its own conclusions. If this is the case, Popper negates his original assertion that refuted claims rescued by auxiliary scientific claims are unscientific. In addition, the original hypothesis, while also less correct than the new undefeated hypothesis, might also be less scientific, in the event that the auxiliary proposition rescuing it provides novel methods of refutability.

Popper is not so impeccable in his quest for ontological purity as he might at first seem. His theories of dogmatic vs. critical personality types, along with their origins and their inclinations, reek of the very irrefutable psychobabble he so bitterly opposes. However, there is more to it- Karl Popper, the great defender of scientific innocence, recognizes a discrepancy in his logic epitomized by David Hume’s conclusive analysis of the Problem of Induction, which Popper immediately accepts. I would have to agree with (posthumously) Hume that certainly repetitions (inductions) must precede Popper’s individual impositions of regularity (conjectures) which Popper uses to hypocritically redeem scientific-status inquiries (what I might consider a definitive “conventionalist twist”), for the extent of regularity and even the agreement of the action of imposition with it must represent conformity to some abstracted repetition of a desirable trend (which must be repeated to be noticed and distinguished; Popper’s analogy of the chicken and the egg is quite irrelevant…a mutation in the body of the precursor species to the chicken or a mutation in its embryo can make all the difference in this scenario). Hume uses this form of repetition to form the basis of the inductive justification for a class of knowledge, which he asserts is invalid for deductive purposes. Popper's confusion lies in the fact that he cannot accept Hume's rejection of logical inference because it is incompatible with Popper’s own justification for the belief in the conclusions of scientific deductive processes (Popper is content to label the contributions of induction to thought as mythical, suggesting that perhaps combinations of genetically “induced” archetypes are exclusively responsible for generating the tower of conjectures originating in the mind; also, Popper’s use of Born’s assertion that empirical circumstances never repeat fails to negate the basis of inductive observations because the characteristics inducted into the mind represent only the present degrees of qualities distinguished in the mind, which is the circumstance that repeats, and not unfounded general assertions…ideally conjectures must necessarily address previously encountered elements of this nature when constructing a deductive argument, which is when the actual mistake of “expecting and imposing” obsolete constructs on an unobserved reality and “deducing” the independent culpability of an abstracted agent associated somewhat vaguely with a discretely observed but presumably consistent trend, the individual instances of Popper’s “scanty material”, must occur), a belief which he admits is essentially dogmatic unless the deduced conclusion leads incontrovertibly to falsification, though in doing so it must imply unfalsified claims collectively entailed in the composite impetus of falsification that are then invalidated themselves, somewhat dogmatically I might add, only to falsify the actuality of falsification. Popper expects to replace Hume’s unjustified assimilations of inductive experience and illogical sustained repetitions with conjectures and refutations, regardless of their inferential origins (along with Popper’s acceptance of Wittgenstein’s empirical observation statements as inherently unscientific but still meaningful, deduction might only be necessary to polarize theoretical accreditations and experimental interpretations: “Only the falsity of the theory can be inferred from empirical evidence, and this inference is a purely deductive one” –K. Popper). A mechanical trial-and-error falsification of beliefs by process of elimination, which might certainly exhaust even the most creative of entrepreneurs, in no way affirms the realization of knowledge (a process credited in this fashion to amoebas), nor does it dispute Hume’s process of dogmatic belief by induction and its inherent logical invalidity (which isn’t so bad when you consider that use of logic is inductively invalid anyway, either in discrete cases or directly because induction, the manner of consistently classifying knowledge for use in logical argument, is inherently a logically weak though popular form of consciousness).

In actuality I believe that he is undermining Hume’s psychological theory of concrete observation preceding abstract classification in the interest of promoting his attitudes towards science as an explicitly directed theorize-first-observe-later affair (he does this by appealing to the notion that the instincts of an infant, so-called genetically-a-priori inborn expectations which he validates using a generalization of Kantian logic, represent an unconscious holistic conjecture without the contamination of past inductive observations regarding the present and future states of its life whether the infant is in a state conducive to the recognition and assimilation of knowledge or not, hardly a falsifiable proposal for the infant as well as for Popper), though obviously one must have some notion of what he is doing if he is to successfully perform a credible experiment. Unfortunately for Popper, true experimentation is one possible result of years of the necessary assimilation of knowledge by a less demanding means, and by submitting to innate expectations (note that his induction machine’s limitations do not cater to implanted predispositions as much as to physical sensory deficits and perhaps Popper’s own lack of acquaintance with the power of neural nets, either trained inductively by the pre-programmed genetic reward signals that are the actual physiological triggers of Hume’s repetitive behaviors or otherwise associated deductively in a convoluted model of Hebbian synaptic plasticity, in statistical pattern recognition) he dismisses a common inclination of vaguely attending to something partially undefined in the environment which also holds no interest for him for the contrary purpose of achieving just that.

A Comparison of Ideals in the Pursuit of Scientific Inquiry 08/14/07

[FDG]

the agreement of the action of imposition with it must represent conformity to some abstracted repetition of a desirable trend

Excuuuuse me?

Anyway, I think you're probably ILE.

[implied]

reminds me of dioklecian, which i suppose is saying enough.

[Nexus]

Excuuuuse me?

Anyway, I think you're probably ILE.

Here I am saying that to apply the criterion consistently, you have to verify that you are doing it correctly every time; you must empirically observe what is happening every time (inductively) to 'observe' if your observations can be described in a logically relevant way before they can be used to defend the criterion. Thank you for taking the time to read that. Is there a specific reason why you think I would be ILE over another type (and does it favor a specific subtype)?

[Nexus]

reminds me of dioklecian, which i suppose is saying enough.

Thanks. I am also a fan of the late Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. Would you mind telling me what Dioklecian's type is, and how we are similar?

[Nexus]

Thanks for your recommendation JuJu; here is the video that you requested:

http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fusea...deoid=35808015

[implied]

Thanks. I am also a fan of the late Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. Would you mind telling me what Dioklecian's type is, and how we are similar?

i think dioklecian self-types as INTp, but the opinions on his type are varied and the consensus about his type mostly leans towards INTj or ENTp for him. the first post actually struck me as similar to him in communication style. beyond that i'm not sure where i'm seeing similarities at this point except vague "vibes" which aren't entirely worth mentioning.

[JuJu]

Ok, yeah, that video was very helpful... Thanks for making that dude.

It narrows it down quite a bit, actually--to two types. (The reason why it doesn't narrow it down to one type is because I couldn't discern your mannerisms very well...) I'm about as sure of this as can be reasonable (lol, about 100&#37--you are Gamma NT, i.e. either INTp or ENTj.

First, let's take your writing... What jumps out at me there is your use of Te. It's so strong and nimble--you're not one to suffer logical contradictions--that I feel nearly 100% sure that it's either your accepting or creative function, (i.e. function #1 or #2, respectively, in Model A...) To be honest with you, after watching your video, I'm more inclined to believe that it's your creative function--but like I said, it's easier to tell the order of functions from mannerisms, so yeah, I could be wrong there, lol.

In the video, Ni jumps out at me. It's everywhere! haha. For example--this is a great example of Ni at work too, definitely--you're learning to play bass so that when you audition for a death metal band, you have something more to offer them if they don't need you on guitar, lol. Anyway, particulars aside, you talked almost exclusively about music, which you seem to love, and about which you know a lot... You describe what you like about it--the unpredictability/potentially surprising nature of it (improvising,) that there is almost an infinite way to do it, (Midi sequencing, bass, guitar, etc.) and that it helps you to relate to ppl (in Socionics, you exhibit a preference for Fi>Fe... This is in line with Gamma NT.) For example, you appreciated that your teacher taught you a more efficient way of playing... In other words, you are very imaginative--your imagination directs you to pursue your interests, (various types of music, various methods of playing, etc,) which are inter-connected.

Yeah, again I'm sorry that I can't tell for sure between the two types, but I know that we're close (i.e. two types.) I'll give you links to a couple of descriptions of them...

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...ical_introvert
Famous examples of INTp = Stanley Kubrick, John Lennon

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=LIE
Famous examples of LIE = Bill Gates, Shia LaBoeuf

[Nexus]

i think dioklecian self-types as INTp, but the opinions on his type are varied and the consensus about his type mostly leans towards INTj or ENTp for him. the first post actually struck me as similar to him in communication style. beyond that i'm not sure where i'm seeing similarities at this point except vague "vibes" which aren't entirely worth mentioning.

Thank you.

Ok, yeah, that video was very helpful... Thanks for making that dude.

It narrows it down quite a bit, actually--to two types. (The reason why it doesn't narrow it down to one type is because I couldn't discern your mannerisms very well...) I'm about as sure of this as can be reasonable (lol, about 100%)--you are Gamma NT, i.e. either INTp or ENTj.

First, let's take your writing... What jumps out at me there is your use of Te. It's so strong and nimble--you're not one to suffer logical contradictions--that I feel nearly 100% sure that it's either your accepting or creative function, (i.e. function #1 or #2, respectively, in Model A...) To be honest with you, after watching your video, I'm more inclined to believe that it's your creative function--but like I said, it's easier to tell the order of functions from mannerisms, so yeah, I could be wrong there, lol.

In the video, Ni jumps out at me. It's everywhere! haha. For example--this is a great example of Ni at work too, definitely--you're learning to play bass so that when you audition for a death metal band, you have something more to offer them if they don't need you on guitar, lol. Anyway, particulars aside, you talked almost exclusively about music, which you seem to love, and about which you know a lot... You describe what you like about it--the unpredictability/potentially surprising nature of it (improvising,) that there is almost an infinite way to do it, (Midi sequencing, bass, guitar, etc.) and that it helps you to relate to ppl (in Socionics, you exhibit a preference for Fi>Fe... This is in line with Gamma NT.) For example, you appreciated that your teacher taught you a more efficient way of playing... In other words, you are very imaginative--your imagination directs you to pursue your interests, (various types of music, various methods of playing, etc,) which are inter-connected.

Yeah, again I'm sorry that I can't tell for sure between the two types, but I know that we're close (i.e. two types.) I'll give you links to a couple of descriptions of them...

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...ical_introvert
Famous examples of INTp = Stanley Kubrick, John Lennon

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=LIE
Famous examples of LIE = Bill Gates, Shia LaBoeuf

Thank you, I really appreciate your opinion; that was very informative and exactly confirms my own suspicions (Gamma NT). I will try to obtain a better camera so that my mannerisms will become apparent...

[tereg]

I've gone through a few of your posts and I just wanted to weigh in briefly (I will probably sit down later and read through your posts thoroughly). But, at first glance (just a first impression really), you kind of remind me of someone that I've seen before on YouTube. I want to post a couple of videos, and I'd like to get your general input about this guy. Just general input... doesn't necessarily have to be about the subject matter this person is talking about. It could be just your impressions about the way he explains things, discusses things, his vibe, whatever comes to mind. I'd like to see if you see any sort of connection between yourself and this person in any fashion whatsoever.





Thanks.

[Nexus]

I've gone through a few of your posts and I just wanted to weigh in briefly (I will probably sit down later and read through your posts thoroughly). But, at first glance (just a first impression really), you kind of remind me of someone that I've seen before on YouTube. I want to post a couple of videos, and I'd like to get your general input about this guy. Just general input... doesn't necessarily have to be about the subject matter this person is talking about. It could be just your impressions about the way he explains things, discusses things, his vibe, whatever comes to mind. I'd like to see if you see any sort of connection between yourself and this person in any fashion whatsoever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRf6SruhFiE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3YYbGItMFU

Thanks.

Hey thanks for helping me out! This is only in response to the second video, I will try to watch the first one later...

He seems somewhat to be a rigid, absolutist perfectionist (INTj?) bent on logically structuring emotionally significant associations. I also tend to see mathematics less as a set of indisputable heuristics than as a holistic ideology as there are always multiple ways of both defining and solving a problem, but he never really made a point and only pointed out notational ambiguities (he mentioned that you must recognize that 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 can be symbolically represented as 4). He also began to reference other ideas such as abstraction and set theory to use in his defense but he never explained any of them or appealed to any type of immediate relevance so they are really only minor distractions if anything. His examples were also not analogous to any specific point except to encourage the potential for multiple interpretations. I disagree with the notion that arithmetic is not useful for more complex manipulations (which is what he asserts) - though certain problems may require another frame of reference (such as geometry), arithmetic is the basis on which advanced techniques are founded (differentiation is derived using a division of 2 intervals in 2 dimensions and integration is related to Riemann sums; in actuality it is only infinitesimal convergence, something that has yet to be actually demonstrated, that separates these from their predecessors) and so is essentially the only thing that is really being applied, but under specific premises that require a distinct set of algorithmic axioms to dictate the order of operations. He also states that arithmetic does not accommodate the interpolation or extrapolation of data, however most approximations to a function are in fact linear and more empirical methods which may rely on exact polynomial coincidence rely solely on arithmetic operations.

I would stress the exact definitions in the logic involved, including 2, 4, +, and =. (+) is the sum of quantities, so that the term (2+2) is significant but not the operation (+). Operations as heuristics are inherently ambiguous (aggregating [2+2] can be compared to not aggregating [2 2] or anti-aggregating [2-2] or partially aggregating [2i+2j], it is similar to an infinite amount of tendencies that are necessary to distinguish it absolutely and these are all subjectively related; also, the 2 sets of 2 never change during the operation, you are just noticing a different aspect which you could compare to something else; negative is also equivalent to positive if you are discussing the cosine of an angle or subtracting negatives - in general polarity is really an arbitrary dimension used for making more detailed comparisons), and that is why I like to use comparisons instead. This term is equivalent to four, and also (=) because it satisfies the criteria for (=) quantities. Since arithmetic is a quantitative study, I think it might be more practical to prove the ability to recognize, combine, and measure quantity, perhaps using gestalt psychology, than to quabble forever with regard to notational differences (I think that I am able distinguish a collection of up to seven randomly distributed objects immediately as a set of seven). Each number (term) began with a unique emotional significance; for instance if you had previously determined that you needed at least five cavemen to hunt a woolly mammoth, and you counted more than five you wouldn't care what the number actually was. More generally an algorithm that seeks a quantity of eight will respond the same way when it reads none as if it were non-existent, and is thus only affected by exactly the number eight (y=8-(x-8)^2). When people discovered how useful mathematics was for keeping track of generally liquefied wealth they created a recursive notation to deal with every possibility (without resorting to tally marks, which can be justified using spatial juxtapositions that don't require dedicated logical manipulations); this notation itself is now considered emotionally significant.

[jason_m]

I'm just learning about socionics, so I'm not an expert, by any means. However, I think I have some input that might help. If it comes down to a choice between ENTj and INTp, I would guess INTp. First of all, you seem to value both logic and creativity, but if I were to guess, I'd say that if you had a choice between being purely logical and purely intuitive, you would choose being intuitive. Also, you seem to be an irrational as opposed to a rational type. Rational types talk about the way things "should be." I would guess that you tend to takes things as they are. Take a look at this link: http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t..._irrationality. If one of those jumps out at you more than the other, then you have good reason to believe you are the corresponding type. However, as I said, I'm no expert, so take my words with a grain of salt.

Jason

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Nexus]

I'm just learning about socionics, so I'm not an expert, by any means. However, I think I have some input that might help. If it comes down to a choice between ENTj and INTp, I would guess INTp. First of all, you seem to value both logic and creativity, but if I were to guess, I'd say that if you had a choice between being purely logical and purely intuitive, you would choose being intuitive. Also, you seem to be an irrational as opposed to a rational type. Rational types talk about the way things "should be." I would guess that you tend to takes things as they are. Take a look at this link: http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t..._irrationality. If one of those jumps out at you more than the other, then you have good reason to believe you are the corresponding type. However, as I said, I'm no expert, so take my words with a grain of salt.

Jason

Thank you for directing me to this resource. Unfortunately I express elements of both rationality and irrationality, so I cannot say for sure...

[Nexus]

@tereg: that guy on the film looks ENFP (IEE) to me. First of all he is a percieving type because he challenges the establishments. he's nice and smart but doesn't have an exact purpose, that reminds me of an ENFP (also his appearance reminds me of an ENFP friend of mine).
@Huitzilopochtli: why weren't you able to put on a band? were the guys avoiding you for the reason you were too demanding for discipline from them? if so, this is natural to an ENTJ (the type i still consider you belong to), you just need to find the right one(s), usually most metal musicians are percieving types :|.
i know a case of an ENTJ that managed to find a guy after a long searching. they have a black metal band for some good years now, released 3 or 4 albums together and look unseparable. though i know this second guy for a long time i didn't manage to type him. all i can say about him is that i think he has a strong Se function somewhere, he's interested in general culture, is a bit elitist and carefully watches his behavior (even when doing "nasty" things). he looks like an ESTP (SLE) though he elegantly passes away any kind of provocation.

Close, it was mostly just hard to find skilled musicians who were also dedicated...after many unsuccessful attempts (and two shows without a drummer) I just gave up completely and starting jamming with anyone who had the time without ever actually performing for an audience...

[JuJu]

@tereg: that guy on the film looks ENFP (IEE) to me. First of all he is a percieving type because he challenges the establishments. he's nice and smart but doesn't have an exact purpose, that reminds me of an ENFP (also his appearance reminds me of an ENFP friend of mine).

ephemeros, I know that you just started here and obviously want to type ppl, but it might be good for you to study the types more before you start doing it... No offense, but typings like this one above (i.e. the person in the video as ENFp,) are the sort of thing that can confuse ppl... I write this because the person in the video is literally the exact opposite type of what you guessed... No big deal, but yeah, instead of typing ppl wily-nily, (lol I love that word,) maybe try to digest the theory first..

Or if you're just trying to do trial & error, that's cool--it's how I learned... I guess I'm just trying to make sure that the typing of that guy as ENFp doesn't confuse anyone... Peace, -Justin

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[JuJu]

ok. i saw many inconsistencies on these forums and felt the need to correct. probably i'm a bit over-confident because i use to type (i'd say correctly) most people i know in real life for some years now.
what actually means "is literally the exact opposite"? what if he typed himself wrong? please bring arguments (msg me or to start a new thread?). i admit i could have been wrong and i'd like an explanation for what i missed. i'm interested only in the truth but cannot take it for granted.

ok, yeah, sure--i appreciate that... Are you coming to Socionics from MBTI? I dunno, is he ENFP in that theory? Honestly, I'm not well-versed in MBTI... I am well-versed in Socionics, (doesn't mean that I can't be wrong, yeah,) where he is ISTj. In Socionics, ISTj is the 'conflicting' relation of ENFp, ('opposite of.')

Using Socionics to type him, one could go about it several ways... Are you familiar with quadra values? Temperaments? Socionics is more complex, and IMO, much more accurate, than MBTI. In MBTI, one can type accurately by dichotomies (yeah? in Socionics, it's most accurate to type by functions... (It takes a long time to get familiar with the functions, in my experience... Years.)

In the case of the dude on the video, his Ti jumps out right away, (which eliminates ENFp as a possibility. ENFps utilize Te>Ti--in fact, Ti is ENFp's POLR, i.e. weak point.) The dude in the video is all Ti all the time... Unfortunately, I'm about to head out to dinner... I could come back here later and explain it if you want... Um quickly:

Ti>Te (pretty good descriptions of these concepts and the others can be found at wikisocion.org... A good list of ISTj celebrities can be found at socionics.us.)
Se>Si
Quadra: Beta
Temperament: IJ

For comparison, here's another intellectual ISTj (in Socionics, anyway Langan, "The Smartest Man in the World" (lol
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QA0gjyXG5O0

Getting to the truth is what I'm after as well... Yeah, I appreciate that you didn't take my typing as granted--I'd suggest looking up some of the concepts though... I imagine that we'll be able to get along well... Ok, peace, -Ju

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Nexus]

Here is a better one! Hope this helps!

[Nexus]

I've gone through a few of your posts and I just wanted to weigh in briefly (I will probably sit down later and read through your posts thoroughly). But, at first glance (just a first impression really), you kind of remind me of someone that I've seen before on YouTube. I want to post a couple of videos, and I'd like to get your general input about this guy. Just general input... doesn't necessarily have to be about the subject matter this person is talking about. It could be just your impressions about the way he explains things, discusses things, his vibe, whatever comes to mind. I'd like to see if you see any sort of connection between yourself and this person in any fashion whatsoever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRf6SruhFiE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3YYbGItMFU

Thanks.

In response to the first video, I think that he's much better at regular philosophy...however, this isn't original stuff (I tend to value novel criticisms because theories that suffer from ancient contradictions tend to become quite stagnant): the first topic is known as infinite regression and the second is known as ontology. He also wastes a lot of time discussing how much time it would take to discuss epistemology (perhaps as an excuse not to), however my biggest concern is that he states that truth is too complex for a priori formulation and ignores that the concept of truth is actually in itself an a priori conjecture - an intuitive notion that is derived from the similarity of ideas that are not false in their own separate frames of reference (perhaps this is the complexity to which he is referring). Thus the search for absolute truth is, as it seems, quite without context...I notice that he also sees numbers as operations with infinite capacities in infinite contexts; special abilities such as these cannot be properly delegated among the constituents of the equation unless by process of elimination (in essence, defining all but one factor as finite entities and leaving the rest of the magic to that remaining character; unfortunately multiple combinations of the relationships between mathematical agents can be arbitrarily chosen for any single equation and for n agents each with a single contribution the number of finite ability distributions would be on the scale of n!), however this does not simplify his definitions at all and makes the subject seem ever more elusive. His many examples, such as the squid-pigs, and his compulsion to address the need for justifying every facet of his argument even while addressing the futility of doing so makes me think that he might be INTp; however I am very new to socionics so I cannot say for sure. He makes a good point about the absolute properties of squid-pigs though - if the first set of squid-pigs contains males and the second set contains females, when they are aggregated there may well be more than just 4 squid-pigs to the count.

BTW If you have a serious interest in epistemology consider voting for your favorite form of documentation in my inference poll:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=19403

Thank you in advance for your contribution!

[Nexus]

That didn't help at all? I'm beginning to think that I'll never know my type...

[tereg]

My overall take is Alpha NT > Gamma NT.

I think that throughout this thread, the way that you have described things -- your desires, aspirations, what frustrates you, your answers to my questions -- all consistently are said in a sort of observer's role, kind of detached from what it is that you're describing. I find that through your written words and your spoken word that you describe things more as an observer rather than as a participant, i.e. in a socionics sense, I hear very little or no anecdotal or personal experience in an sort of way of describing things. If anything is described that might relate to you, it is still analyzed and broken down objectively and from a sort of psychological distance.

I purposely proposed my question in such a way that allowed you to answer the question in a very natural, open-ended way. And what I've found, in a general sense, is that you primarily described the content of the videos and effectively analyzed what was said, then supplied your opinion, but it was done in a very "here are the facts about what he has said about ____" sort of way. I'm not sure if it was intended this way, but, it was almost like the question of "what do you find you relate to about this person" was almost like an afterthought. What was more paramount to you was what he talked about and how what he thought compared to what you thought, and doing a side-by-side checklist sort of thing about points he made and why or why not it is correct.

I fail to see -valuing like I would see in Gamma NTs.

Put it another way, compare your manner of speech and way of describing things to user niffweed17.

I find that when niffweed generally describes things, it rings more (at least to me) as a very subjective point of view base, but supplying objective facts to make his case, more described in such a way where you can kind of hear or see him directly involved and immersed in what he describes. Whereas when you are describing things, I see a more objective point of view, detaching yourself or personal feelings from what you describe, and I can almost visualize you as a narrator or apart from the event or principle which you describe.

I think the quadra values for Alpha are more consistent than with Gamma.

I have seen no evidence to suggest or valuing anywhere in your speech. I have seen plenty of , , and I even have seen a bit of in you. I think your is most evident in how you express yourself and what you have been asked.


This is just my opinion of course, but this is what I have seen of you thus far. If I had to venture further about which Alpha NT, I think INTj makes a lot of sense to me.

[tereg]

Regarding the person in the videos I posted, I'm not sure of his type to be honest, but I think he describes things in a very sort of way.

Your reaction to this was quite interesting in that I could kind of hear in what you said... hmm... not really an impatience, but more of a "I'm not sure what he was trying to get at / I'm not sure if what he's saying is as complex as what he makes it to be / He didn't really make (or get to) any point" sort of thing instead of going through tediously explaining the background of his reasonings.

The way he makes his point in the videos is done in this sort of layered, bottom-up building process. But, I sensed that you'd rather prefer him sort of come out and state his main point. And I find that you in your videos, by contrast, just state facts and state your main points rather ... hmm... not forcefully but very directly and manner-of-factly, almost effortlessly.

I think your answer really clarified the Ti/Te difference and contrast between the person in the video and yourself.

[Ms. Kensington]

Regarding the person in the videos I posted, I'm not sure of his type to be honest, but I think he describes things in a very sort of way.

Your reaction to this was quite interesting in that I could kind of hear in what you said... hmm... not really an impatience, but more of a "I'm not sure what he was trying to get at / I'm not sure if what he's saying is as complex as what he makes it to be / He didn't really make (or get to) any point" sort of thing instead of going through tediously explaining the background of his reasonings.

The way he makes his point in the videos is done in this sort of layered, bottom-up building process. But, I sensed that you'd rather prefer him sort of come out and state his main point. And I find that you in your videos, by contrast, just state facts and state your main points rather ... hmm... not forcefully but very directly and manner-of-factly, almost effortlessly.

I think your answer really clarified the Ti/Te difference and contrast between the person in the video and yourself.

hm, well i think you have to consider that the video about 2+2=4 is a response video.. i would think that you'd approach listening to this person with a certain context. I do agree that because it's extended (like 7 minutes) there's more opportunity for it to be a lecture.. something Te. You seem to have an interest in him so you probably have seen more videos than just this one. Just my two cents.

[Ms. Kensington]

lol

im also feeling some impatience with him watching some more videos

ramble

[tereg]

hm, well i think you have to consider that the video about 2+2=4 is a response video.. i would think that you'd approach listening to this person with a certain context. I do agree that because it's extended (like 7 minutes) there's more opportunity for it to be a lecture.. something Te. You seem to have an interest in him so you probably have seen more videos than just this one. Just my two cents.

Yeah if you watch more of his videos, you'd be able to see this more clearly. And I took this into consideration before I said it.

Here's a non-response video that I think clearly shows tendencies. And he shows this tendency throughout his series of videos. Even this this video is part 6 of a series of videos in his "Games Series", you can see how he talks about things in a very layered way, almost like extracting layers off of an onion as he works his way to his point.



Edit: Here he talks about his "reveal" or his "endgame", i.e. answering the question "What are you trying to get at with these videos that you've been doing in this series?" He goes back and summarizes what he's talked about in the previous 5 videos and talks about, very carefully, what he's trying to show through these videos.

Edit 2: In other words, he very carefully takes the viewer's hands and he makes sure that he's very clear about understanding what it is that he's talking about, and he does it in a very thorough manner, across several videos.

I find this to be a way to describe things and in reaching a logical conclusion.

[Nexus]

Yes, detached observation is very typical of my information metabolism. I am also very direct and concise, so you were right to pick that up too. I have actually tried to show the differences in how I relate to the subject based on how we think about stuff (as opposed to what we think) and why we would emphasize different aspects, and the way we look at things (but I could not help correcting his logic, I find inconsistency very irritating; I have to admit that I feel a strong metaphysical connection to him despite these differences). After watching the third video, I can see that he is well-versed in many subjects (I also like the cinematic narration and overlays), however I am not so familiar with socionics as to immediately recognize a penchant for . Overall you bring up some very interesting arguments for Alpha, I shall have to confer with my colleagues...while I am grateful for your analysis, I am now much less confident that I am a Gamma NT and it would seem that my prospects are now even greater. So thanks again; I appreciate what you are doing for me. For the present I will consider XNTx which is somewhat reminiscent of the supersocion of the psychorelative theory - http://armleg.com/psychorelative

[JuJu]

Yeah, tereg is right--after seeing that last video, I have more questions than answers about your type, unfortunately. (Sorry for not seeing it for a couple days--these have been busy ones for me, for better or worse...)

The last video was helpful though--thanks for making it... You seem cool.

To sum up, I believe that it's more likely you're INTx than ENTx... If you want me to go into it I will... However, to know your exact type, it would be helpful--for me, anyway--to discern whether you value Fe or Fi. (I admit, from those first couple of videos, I can't tell at all.)

To do it, you could make a video (that'd be ideal,) or write something about what you value in ppl or situations... Essentially, just talk/write about what you like... Could be ethically, morally, or in terms of what makes you happy in general--ppl, situations, the more breadth and/or depth the better.

I'm sorry for throwing topics at you, haha... obviously, do it only if you want, but yeah... if you're up for it, hopefully it will help us get to the bottom of it.

[Ms. Kensington]

Fe/Fi?

yeah. seems like hes a logical type huh.

[JuJu]

yeah. seems like hes a logical type huh.

lol!!!

yup, haha

[Nexus]

Yeah, tereg is right--after seeing that last video, I have more questions than answers about your type, unfortunately. (Sorry for not seeing it for a couple days--these have been busy ones for me, for better or worse...)

The last video was helpful though--thanks for making it... You seem cool.

To sum up, I believe that it's more likely you're INTx than ENTx... If you want me to go into it I will... However, to know your exact type, it would be helpful--for me, anyway--to discern whether you value Fe or Fi. (I admit, from those first couple of videos, I can't tell at all.)

To do it, you could make a video (that'd be ideal,) or write something about what you value in ppl or situations... Essentially, just talk/write about what you like... Could be ethically, morally, or in terms of what makes you happy in general--ppl, situations, the more breadth and/or depth the better.

I'm sorry for throwing topics at you, haha... obviously, do it only if you want, but yeah... if you're up for it, hopefully it will help us get to the bottom of it.

That's fine, I appreciate that you're helping me at all; my sister took her Macbook back though, so I won't be able to get another video of that quality...

I tend to like a lot of people, I don't really make enemies unless they single me out or try to screw to me...I realize that I may not be the best person to judge which combinations of qualities give different people their advantage, so I must hesitate to judge people (and functions in general) unless they consistently disappoint me. I value directness and sincerity; I don't have patience for mindless bullshit. I can really relate to people that prioritize well and aren't easily discouraged. I also admire people who have set principles or can adapt quickly to a new circumstance. I must also admire people for having an open mind and making an attempt to push the limits of their own understanding, and for being creative or perceptive. I am irritated by people that complain or act overly dependent because they tend to be wasteful and unfocused, and I generally don't tend to value feelings as an ultimate authority because they are generally fickle and irrational (so I often treat them as factual tendencies to manipulate logically). I am not sure if that's what you are looking for but if you are more specific I will try to accommodate you - thanks again.

[Nexus]

If it helps any I am RCOEI in the SLOAN Global 5 taxonomy and my personality enneagram is 5 (possibly with a 6 wing).

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Nexus]

this put me in doubts, RCOEI is an introvert. your post before this one made me more confident you are ENTJ/LIE. they hate weakness, excuses.

those things sound familiar, my boss before was ENTJ, i became very influent because i was standing my position before him with arguments and was searching always for new solutions. they don't want to hear "impossible" but may use this word as a marketing strategy. my (and probably most percieving types) divergence with an ENTJ is time: i can never guarantee a deadline.
in my experience ENTJs problems with their Socionics descriptions is dressing: they don't think they dress without taste. but they agree they like snowboarding or things like that

I could still be extroverted though (and especially ENTj):

ENTJ's are born explorers with the purpose of bringing light to every unknown place, you look like one.
Your "introverted" behavior could be a way you learned to be more successful.

I tend to like a lot of people, I don't really make enemies unless they single me out or try to screw to me...I realize that I may not be the best person to judge which combinations of qualities give different people their advantage, so I must hesitate to judge people (and functions in general) unless they consistently disappoint me. I value directness and sincerity; I don't have patience for mindless bullshit. I can really relate to people that prioritize well and aren't easily discouraged. I also admire people who have set principles or can adapt quickly to a new circumstance. I must also admire people for having an open mind and making an attempt to push the limits of their own understanding, and for being creative or perceptive. I am irritated by people that complain or act overly dependent because they tend to be wasteful and unfocused, and I generally don't tend to value feelings as an ultimate authority because they are generally fickle and irrational (so I often treat them as factual tendencies to manipulate logically).

It seems to me that I exhibit traits from both INTp and ENTj.

[reckoner]

My guess is ENTj. Your previous post where you discuss personal attributes that you admire or dislike in others makes me lean towards ENTj.