What is my Type?

[unefille]

That can never happen. It is not in the ISTj's nature to think and act like that. It's an impossible scenario.

I respectfully disagree. In life, there are multiple institutions with different, often contradictory rules. An LSI, no matter how rule-adherent, cannot possibly value and conform to every set of rules they are presented with. They have to make a choice. Once they've decided on a set of rules, they are unlikely to change their minds, yes, due to PoLR, but they can, under some circumstances do so anyway. That however, is not what I'm talking about.

The rules the LSI follows are their own. That is why an LSI can be both the policeman and also the criminal, depending on which set of 'rules' or which 'institution' they come to value and lock down in their minds.

[unefille]

@Unefile, the main issues with Huitz on Ganin's forum surrounded something there which is called "chatbox" it's part of the forum and it's a way for members to interact with each other in real time. Huitz had literally been spending hours each day on this, so I don't think it can realistically be said that he didn't want to participate on the forum, if not why would he devote so much of his day and evening time do doing so?

@Phaedrus, I agree with you that ISTj's don't really act in such a way.

I don't know, nor would I be inclined to infer, Huitz's investment in Ganin's forum and what you say may be right. I was generally querying the depiction of LSIs as always toeing the line. I think they are likely to toe the line only as long as it makes sense to them subjectively. That doesn't mean I think they are likely or prone to rule-breaking or disregarding rules, but that because they follow internal principles (and external principles to the extent that the two sets coincide), they are not automatons to the extent of 'rule - must follow'.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I don't know, nor would I be inclined to infer, Huitz's investment in Ganin's forum and what you say may be right. I was generally querying the depiction of LSIs as always toeing the line. I think they are likely to toe the line only as long as it makes sense to them subjectively. That doesn't mean I think they are likely or prone to rule-breaking or disregarding rules, but that because they follow internal principles (and external principles to the extent that the two sets coincide), they are not automatons to the extent of 'rule - must follow'.

You're making it too complicated, he exhibits weak Fe for reasons already listed, and weak Se for reasons already listed, and like I say, you are speculating on reasons you are not fully aware of, as no one would spend hours of their day and evening trying to get themselves intentionally banned from a forum, what is the point in that? He was oblivious to interactions with others in a social context (weak Fe) and being unable to understand heirarchy, follow rules or even work round the rules should he choose, or maneuver in it successfully, or see how much pressure to apply, when to apply is weak Se.

So even if he was trying to upset the apple cart so to speak - which is more an ESTp thing, he would have been able to manuever better. It's true to say that ISTj's don't look to upset a system, they like to try to maintain it. (but if they did, they would be more effective at it)

[Phaedrus]

I respectfully disagree.

And I disrespectfully don't accept that you disagree. You should study the types instead of having groundless subjective opinions on that which you don't understand. Study and learn first.

In life, there are multiple institutions with different, often contradictory rules. An LSI, no matter how rule-adherent, cannot possibly value and conform to every set of rules they are presented with.

And neither have I said that they do. You have to be able to separate things here and avoid making the kind of incorrect logical inferences that you are maing here.

They have to make a choice. Once they've decided on a set of rules, they are unlikely to change their minds, yes, due to PoLR, but they can, under some circumstances do so anyway. That however, is not what I'm talking about.

And that is not what I have talked about either, so why do you bring irrelevant aspects of the types to our attention?

The rules the LSI follows are their own.

No. You seem to have misunderstood the LSI type. Study it some more in the literature and in real life.

That is why an LSI can be both the policeman and also the criminal, depending on which set of 'rules' or which 'institution' they come to value and lock down in their minds.

No, you are wrong about that.

[implied]

I don't know, nor would I be inclined to infer, Huitz's investment in Ganin's forum and what you say may be right. I was generally querying the depiction of LSIs as always toeing the line. I think they are likely to toe the line only as long as it makes sense to them subjectively. That doesn't mean I think they are likely or prone to rule-breaking or disregarding rules, but that because they follow internal principles (and external principles to the extent that the two sets coincide), they are not automatons to the extent of 'rule - must follow'.

why would that be the case though if he liked the forum? i thought the situation was more like, he liked the forum, thus as an LSI he might think, "i like staying here thus it is in my best interests to obey forum rules."

[FDG]

No ones saying that. The point is he said I know nothing about his life, and that he is like Langham. I simply gave some facts to say that I do know about both of them, idiot.

Why are you calling me idiot for this is beyond me.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Why are you calling me idiot for this is beyond me.

I was under the impression you were saying I was retarded, or at least my point was retarded, but you simply mis-interpreted my point, so I thought I would respond in kind. Perhaps we both mis-understood each other here, if so, I apologise for that (but it did seem like you were calling me retarded-it's the word you used without understanding were I was coming from )

[FDG]

I was under the impression you were saying I was retarded, or at least my point was retarded, but you simply mis-interpreted my point, so I thought I would respond in kind. Perhaps we both mis-understood each other here, if so, I apologise for that (but it did seem like you were calling me retarded-it's the word you used without understanding were I was coming from )

Ok, no I don't mean you are retarded, I had mis-interpreted your point and though it was retarded, lol, but now I see what you mean

[unefille]

You're making it too complicated, he exhibits weak Fe for reasons already listed, and weak Se for reasons already listed, and like I say, you are speculating on reasons you are not fully aware of

I was just trying to understand one reason you gave, rather than make an argument for his type, or for his behaviour. You could say I was trying to understand the general case (LSI) as opposed to specific case (Huitz). There's no need to indulge my speculation, but of course I appreciate it if you do. I did specifically say I had no interest in inferring anything about his behaviour.

why would that be the case though if he liked the forum? i thought the situation was more like, he liked the forum, thus as an LSI he might think, "i like staying here thus it is in my best interests to obey forum rules."

That wouldn't be the case if he liked the forum at the time he was banned and I was speculating concerning the case if he didn't; I wasn't aware that he necessarily did like it (or that that was the operative assumption/fact).

And I disrespectfully don't accept that you disagree. You should study the types instead of having groundless subjective opinions on that which you don't understand. Study and learn first.

Well, in that case, you could actually explain what you're talking about? Why can the LSI never do whatever it is they never do, aside from the fact that they never do it? If I appear to be making incorrect logical inferences, you also appear to be using redundant circular reasoning. If you want to correct what you perceive as mistakes, then teach.

[Phaedrus]

Why can the LSI never do whatever it is they never do, aside from the fact that they never do it?

Because it is in their biological nature not to do it. They are born that way. What other kind of explanation are you looking for? Some facts of nature just have to be accepted. The ultimate explanation of why LSIs can't do it is to be found in their brain structure, but that is a job for neurobiologists to figure out some day in the future.

If I appear to be making incorrect logical inferences, you also appear to be using redundant circular reasoning.

You, like so many others on these forums, always seem to misunderstand the points I am making in this respect. I am not making logical inferences here, I am just stating empirical facts. There is no arguing involved, I'm simply pointing out some things that we just have to accept as the basis for our further reasonings. To ignore those facts will get you nowhere, except perhaps backwards, further away from a correct understanding of the types.

If you want to correct what you perceive as mistakes, then teach.

I repeat over and over again that you have to go to the sources of information and really study the types. That means acquiring the necessary knowledge that will enable you to understand the types correctly. It is not my job, however, to teach you what is already explained in detail in the socionic literature. You simply have to read some texts and go out in the real world and do some empirical studies on the types in real life situations.

I am stating the truth about the types, but you and others choose to ignore it instead of checking for yourself and realize that I am right. So it doesn't seem to matter what I say -- you refuse to accept the facts anyway. That's why I, crazedrat, and some others have reason to get pissed off. We constantly have to deal with people with a lesser understanding and knowledge of the types than we possess ourselves, and when we say where you will find the truth, you refuse to go there and see for yourself. That's extremely irritating.

[unefille]

Well, the reason anyone keeps telling you that you are not stating a fact is because you're not stating a fact. A type is an abstraction, a categorisation scheme based on aggregated observations. Moreover, type behaviours do not exist in and of themselves, but are due to how various information metabolism elements are arranged in someone's psyche. When I ask you explain why, I mean, why does this arrangement of IMEs in this person's psyche lead to this result.

Saying 'This is wrong' is not stating a fact, it is making a value judgement and it remains a value judgment until you are able to explain and justify the values behind your judgement call.

I'm not sure this will have any effect on you, it will probably have NO effect on you, but surely you can see that even if everyone else is wrong, your way of stating the 'truth' is both ineffective and unpersuasive. The ultimate question is: why bother to engage at all, if your engagement is unproductive?

[Ezra]

This is fucking insane. Huitzilopochtli doesn't even post here anymore, let alone give a shit. He was probably sick and tired of Phaedrus' inane bullshit.

[Nexus]

on second hand it is not impossible for you to be an ISTj...its just that you may be one that a lot of people have not seen enough to build a database from....

your Visions(Ni) of what is put before you are rather "impressive" as Vader would say......

i can see a scenario where your attitude may correspond to MBTTs..... TiNi .....(thus you can be both a Ti wurm and an Ni wurm all in one bang)...this of course is a ,lets say ,temporal version for sake of arguement here... of TiSe

Kensi, since I am a judging type and judging subtype it is possible that my PoLR and creative functions are less defined, so at times I can seem more LII than LSI, but ultimately I am much more comfortable being LSI than LII. Are you Ne-subtype? I find that among ENFps, I can get along very well with ENFp-Ne. Also, I can see you as a thinking rather than feeling type due to all of the insight you have shown (though perhaps that was actually just a really powerful Ne), so if you are a perceiving type and subtype it is likely that you will exhibit characteristics from both judging types.

i think he'd make a decent ISTj if in fact ifmd95 is one (and i know it's a type he's considered.) but at the moment i'm not sure where the Ne polr is, unless it's somehow connected to ENFp spontaneity rather than "worst case scenario" visions. i'd like to know why huitzilopochtli (i love typing this) has bad interactions with ENFps.

I don't have a problem with ENFps, but we have very different perspectives, ideologies, and motives. I have had some pretty vicious arguments with some and I have gotten along extremely well with others. I guess that every ENFp is different, but the altercations I did have seemed ultimately to result from intertype miscommunication.

do you see yourself as Langham or not? If the answer is you do then yo are deluded about yourself This is easy, if you understood power balances, and hence had strong Se, you wouldn't have got banned from SG's forum, instead you spent your time insulting and not listening, behaving infact like many of the INTp's do here. You're Se isn't strong, you don't know how to present yourself, or if you wished to create some sort of 'revolution', you don't know how to do it
No ones looking to discredit you. You need to calm down. And in regards to these facts that you turn out - you don't get it - you assume everyone knows what your talking about. Why would you have learned all the information you have, taken the time to do so, use it to construct your arguments, if you didn't value Te? You don't argue from a system point of view, you argue from a factual point of view.

You're arguments are Te based, you have weak Se, there isn't anything there to suggest ISTj.

Why are you asking me if I think I am Langham, what does it have to with press-ups, and how does this show that you know anything about me? You should have been banned for trying to pick fights with me and starting threads about me in front of SG (which he immediately deleted from the forums), but apparently he likes you more or maybe he just feels more threatened by me. If anyone is trying to start something here it is you Cyclops, and I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to type me inaccurately or otherwise contributing to this thread.

fwiw, i do believe that this (understanding of balance of forces/power on the planet) is related to Se and is often mentioned in descriptions of ISTjs and ESTps. basically i suppose ISTjs should be good at "towing the line" for lack of a better way to put it, following the rules in such a way as to not be kicked from a forum. i had no idea he was banned from SG's forum, but certainly it has something to do with that. at least within beta quadra. to me it seems like weak ethics + probably not very strong .

I do understand power balances. I kept Cyclops and Sirena from turning CC against me, and for that I was called manipulative, but ultimately he sided with SG (the real power on that forum). I also have a tendency to size up people and to watch their actions very closely. I do not feel like I need to belong to SG's hierarchy, and a large part of assessing power balances is knowing when the establishment is weak, and it was. I have received at least six assurances from members at SG's forum which agreed with my position, and I haven't been the first to suggest that SG is a censor, a bully, and a hypocrite. However I will not sit by and listen to the inane comments that I have received there and I believe that anyone with Se will understand that.

But surely recognising power balances doesn't mean you're always going to act in an appropriate fashion with respect to that power. It would depend entirely on the judgement function in that case - that is, what the aim of their interaction is, how much the value that interaction etc.

You're assuming Se always wants to win the fight - but Se is a perceiving function that obviously has to be exercised in conjunction with other functions. And people with strong Se still loose arguments and get into pointless arguments; to say they don't seems a bit strange to me. I see SLE's do the most incredibly stupid things around me, that obviously gets them into trouble with authority figures. The fact that they may perceive that the power balance is against them doesn't seem to stop them from making bad judgement calls, when their aim is to express their anger/piss the other person off. Se might make them more aware of the consequences of their actions (not necessarily in the Ni sense), but might not always stop them from doing it anyway.

I agree. If Se was about only recognizing and following power balances then there wouldn't be any. Cyclops has a way of literally interpreting everything he reads. If it isn't explicitly stated in the type description, it will not fit into whatever stereotype Cyclops considers to be Te. The use of logic (Ti) required to deduce simple logical or obvious practical implications simply is not there.

[Nexus]

Hmm, but what if the ISTj decided that he/she had no respect for the institution in question, no benefit to be gained from 'playing by their rules' and complete disregard for the actual rules as well. I think if Huitz wanted to remain a part of Ganin's forum and valued the forum (in some way), getting kicked out would be indicative of both weak ethics and Se. But if he ceased to value that forum ('institution and its rules'), then I'm not sure it would indicate as such.

You are absolutely right. I think that you may have a much deeper understanding of LSI than either Cyclops or Phaedrus. For the record, the real socionics heavyweights that I have been fortunate enough to have met, including Smilingeyes, Expat, and RSV3, have all agreed that I am LSI.

You're making it too complicated, he exhibits weak Fe for reasons already listed, and weak Se for reasons already listed, and like I say, you are speculating on reasons you are not fully aware of, as no one would spend hours of their day and evening trying to get themselves intentionally banned from a forum, what is the point in that? He was oblivious to interactions with others in a social context (weak Fe) and being unable to understand heirarchy, follow rules or even work round the rules should he choose, or maneuver in it successfully, or see how much pressure to apply, when to apply is weak Se.

So even if he was trying to upset the apple cart so to speak - which is more an ESTp thing, he would have been able to manuever better. It's true to say that ISTj's don't look to upset a system, they like to try to maintain it. (but if they did, they would be more effective at it)

Cyclops for you everything is too complicated. Why don't you leave the discussion to the people who actually know what they are talking about? Being banned was not my intention, but if you had any clue what you are talking about you will know that I left SG's chatbox of my own volition before he even banned me, and I told him that I will not tolerate hypocrisy, bullying, or censorship.

why would that be the case though if he liked the forum? i thought the situation was more like, he liked the forum, thus as an LSI he might think, "i like staying here thus it is in my best interests to obey forum rules."

There are certain people who I value on that forum, most of which I can interact with here anyway. There is nothing holding me to SG's forum itself, and I owe him nothing.

I was under the impression you were saying I was retarded, or at least my point was retarded, but you simply mis-interpreted my point, so I thought I would respond in kind. Perhaps we both mis-understood each other here, if so, I apologise for that (but it did seem like you were calling me retarded-it's the word you used without understanding were I was coming from )

You are retarded. And you know nothing about me or my type so please stop discussing them.

I was just trying to understand one reason you gave, rather than make an argument for his type, or for his behaviour. You could say I was trying to understand the general case (LSI) as opposed to specific case (Huitz). There's no need to indulge my speculation, but of course I appreciate it if you do. I did specifically say I had no interest in inferring anything about his behaviour.

That wouldn't be the case if he liked the forum at the time he was banned and I was speculating concerning the case if he didn't; I wasn't aware that he necessarily did like it (or that that was the operative assumption/fact).

Well, in that case, you could actually explain what you're talking about? Why can the LSI never do whatever it is they never do, aside from the fact that they never do it? If I appear to be making incorrect logical inferences, you also appear to be using redundant circular reasoning. If you want to correct what you perceive as mistakes, then teach.

It was not the operative, and you are correct in your assumptions. It would never occur to Cyclops or Phaedrus, both Te types, that you cannot satisfy everyone, and that LSIs must choose between one ideology and another. This implies that LSIs will not defend and maintain every institution that they come across, though they may try to improve it.

This is fucking insane. Huitzilopochtli doesn't even post here anymore, let alone give a shit. He was probably sick and tired of Phaedrus' inane bullshit.

I still post threads once in a while; not long ago I posted a video of a neurobiologist who experienced a stroke in her left hemisphere and described what she learned while on the inside, and much of it seemed correlated to socionic functions.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I'd like to make a few things clear here. Huitz has said publically that he feels he mislead Smilingeyes and Expat into believing he was IJ temperament, because he wanted to.

If you did not intend to leave SG's forum, why were you spending hours on it up to the minute you got banned?

There is nothin being turned against you here. Sure I disagreed with what you said, but how many people here would agree with the following comments by Huitz: "ENFp's are socially conceited", "F types opinions do not matter because they are not capable of making sense", "ISTp's are just people trying to be ESTj's" If you can't understand how you would have someone disagree with you, and why you are wrong, then you really know little about the correct method of socionics whatsoever.

Huitz only started posting here again once he was banned from SG's forum for being disruptive, constantly creating arguments, and disobeying rules despite warnings.

The facts speak for themselves. You have your type wrong, and as a person, you need to chill a bit, and re-address you're understanding of things.

[Phaedrus]

Well, the reason anyone keeps telling you that you are not stating a fact is because you're not stating a fact.

No, that is definitely not the reason, because I am stating the facts, so what you are claiming here is a logical impossibility.

A type is an abstraction, a categorisation scheme based on aggregated observations.

No, a type is a real, objectively existing structure manifesting itself in different real life people. It is independent of Socionics or any other theory that you might use to talk about that entity. A type exists in roughly the same way that a molecule exists. It has existed long before Augusta invented Socionics and long before Jung wrote Psychological Types.

Moreover, type behaviours do not exist in and of themselves, but are due to how various information metabolism elements are arranged in someone's psyche.

Wrong again.

When I ask you explain why, I mean, why does this arrangement of IMEs in this person's psyche lead to this result.

Your question doesn't make sense. You have a theory -- Socionics -- that is supposed to explain these things. If you don't think that it works, you could try to come up with a better one.

Saying 'This is wrong' is not stating a fact, it is making a value judgement and it remains a value judgment until you are able to explain and justify the values behind your judgement call.

Whether I bother to explain and justify my judgments or not, my value judgments are still objectively right or wrong every single time I utter them. If I make a true statement -- which I almost always do -- then my statement corresponds with a fact.

I'm not sure this will have any effect on you, it will probably have NO effect on you, but surely you can see that even if everyone else is wrong, your way of stating the 'truth' is both ineffective and unpersuasive.

It seems so, yes. And that is no advertisement for you or any other person who is reacting that way to what I am saying. Basically, you are acting like a total jerk, since you show no respect for truth or a scientific approach to solving genuine problems.

The ultimate question is: why bother to engage at all, if your engagement is unproductive?

A more relevant question is this: Why do you make any statement at all, if you are so uninterested in finding the objectie truth?

[Cuddly McFluffles]

"F types opinions do not matter because they are not capable of making sense"

I'd be curious to know when that was said, and in what context.

As for the two of you (Huitz and Cyclops), you both have F issues, so it's rather aggravating seeing you pointing fingers at each other rather than acknowledging that you yourself also have a problem.

[Nexus]

I'd like to make a few things clear here. Huitz has said publically that he feels he mislead Smilingeyes and Expat into believing he was IJ temperament, because he wanted to.

If you did not intend to leave SG's forum, why were you spending hours on it up to the minute you got banned?

There is nothin being turned against you here. Sure I disagreed with what you said, but how many people here would agree with the following comments by Huitz: "ENFp's are socially conceited", "F types opinions do not matter because they are not capable of making sense", "ISTp's are just people trying to be ESTj's" If you can't understand how you would have someone disagree with you, and why you are wrong, then you really know little about the correct method of socionics whatsoever.

Huitz only started posting here again once he was banned from SG's forum for being disruptive, constantly creating arguments, and disobeying rules despite warnings.

The facts speak for themselves. You have your type wrong, and as a person, you need to chill a bit, and re-address you're understanding of things.

That is an outright lie, and the situation to which you are referring did not involve you - when I asked someone who had concluded that I was INTp why they chose ILI over LII and they answered that they 'felt' that I was, I answered rather bluntly that I believe that two 'thinking' types are best distinguished using arguments concerning T rather than F. I explained my position numerous times but you seem to be the only one who is intent on continuing to spread this lie. The other quotes were taken out of context, the first was with regard to me trying to help someone determine whether she was ENFp or INFp, and you purposefully omitted what I said about INFps in order to help her compare the two. As extroverts, ENFps can certainly be more social than INFps, and since they are both aristocratic types they both have the capacity to be conceited. What I said about Delta STs was with reference to a video I was discussing with someone else and that also did not involve you. I am surprised that you were resourceful enough to even find my private conversations with others, but I do not question that your motive is to discredit me wherever I go. Please stop attempting to dig dirt from random places and post it here. I never said I misled anyone, that is another lie. I have also been reading and posting here all along, but apparently anything that does not involve a dispute is not of interest to you. I enjoyed using the chatbox b/c it allowed me to communicate in real time with others concerning socionics and simultaneously allowed us to transfer a lot of information very quickly (in fact it allowed me to communicate in such an efficient manner and with so many people that I was finally able to discern my type from direct interactions with other types, and that result is the reason I recently updated this specific thread), but since discussing socionics on the socionics.com chatbox is now specifically prohibited, I no longer have a use for it. I must ask you now to refrain from posting on this thread, especially if you have nothing positive to contribute to it. This is my thread, and it concerns my type. I have told you numerous times that I am no longer interested in hearing any of your opinions. You need to get a life.

I'd be curious to know when that was said, and in what context.

As for the two of you (Huitz and Cyclops), you both have F issues, so it's rather aggravating seeing you pointing fingers at each other rather than acknowledging that you yourself also have a problem.

Ryene do not even listen to Cyclops, he has no business being here, and he had no interest in this thread until he found another opportunity to demean me in it. There is no issue, Quasi-Identicals do not value each other's functions - I do not value Cyclops's opinions and he does not value mine. I am only afraid that he will ruin this discussion with his petty accusations and ignorant attacks. As I said, he has no business being here if he cannot even answer my refutations, but I actually prefer that he doesn't respond since ultimately all of his assertions are absolutely irrelevant to my type.

[Nexus]

LSI Premise #1: I fit all 15 LSI Reinin traits, and all of my intertype relations make sense from the perspective of LSI. The logical subtype of ISTj describes me more accurately than any other type or subtype in socionics. I am also more comfortable with LSI functions - I never abandon my Se but I only use it when I know that Ti is not contextually valuable. I agree with Pragmatist Club standards, Beta Quadrant values, Aggressor Romance styles, and Rational-Intratim Temperament habits, and the other LSI Model A functions and information elements fit me very well: I am much likelier to hide Te from others unless I feel like sharing it, and I am absolutely delighted by expressive Fe in attractive girls. Fe and Ni seem to fit with my archetypal anima. When I dream, it is usually of things that may have happened to me far in the past or future, as though my knowledge of different things is allowed to uncoil from itself and encourage a feeling of hope by suppressing any fear-based anticipations. I often experience an incredible rush of Fe as well, that leaves me quite disoriented when I awake but also helps to clear any emotional distress I may have been associating with my life. I tend to see IP and EJ among NFs (victim) as more individually humble (mentor) and socially confident (romantic) and EP and IJ among STs (aggressor) as more socially humble (inspector) and individually confident (conqueror). I hate that Gammas and Deltas take their relationships as black-and-white and so personally as to be egotistical, and do not value their acquaintances or community as much as Beta. Alpha relations seem too idealistic and often less real than dream-like in my opinion, so they depress me somewhat. I love social order, it provides a foundation for the growth of an internally supported civilization and represents to me all that man has accomplished against the elements, chaos, and even the entropic arrow of time. I have no personal value for Si, and Ni as my mobilizing function totally explains why most of the people who were absolutely certain that I was ILI are also no longer in any significant contact with me. It also explains my lifelong battle with 'clairvoyance' and 'internal clocks', or why I have such a good use of intuition for very short periods but I rarely produce anything practical with it - I like to make lists of things that I intuit are important; I can get so obsessive-compulsive about my intuition that I will endlessly make copies of entries from each list and then systematically combine them, but ultimately my intuition has little to do with the way I handle pressure in daily life. I probably value Ni (foresight) more than Ne (insight), but it works much better when I am not trying to use it, as if it was operating independently from the rest of me. The combination of Ni and Fe is perfect as a last resort, for cheering me up, or for filling in holes in the 'big picture' when my other work is complete, but usually it is not necessarily useful to me. While I value resourcefulness, an intuitive strength, I use it only when my primary accepted means are unavailable; however competence and consistency, which are ST values, are always important to me. And while I try to be resourceful, I am often totally oblivious to the value of things around me as per Ne because I am almost always absorbed in some type of abstract structure for which they have no use. I rarely notice when Fi is lacking, but with a lot of effort I can usually understand the other person's perspective - however I ultimately dismiss this as an unwanted influence, and when I overhear negative Fi I am immediately turned off by it. There is not enough order or predictability for me in intuition - as I realize that intuition does not (for me) have as high a yield of producing necessary and lasting physical order in the world I have all but abandoned exercising intuition in favor of uncorrelated specific details and thorough empirical accuracy (I am often overwhelmed with comprehensive details of even negligible consequence for the sake of completeness). This is totally in line with my own philosophy - I am a Frequentist rather than a Bayesian as I indicated in my epistemological inference poll (click here for details); I rarely connect the dots with regard to two independent conditions and if I have no prior experience with a correlation I may ignore it; this is typical of LSI patterns of belief, preparing for the worst case that can be expected rather than combining possibilities intuitively (which can be prone to increases in measurement error and uncertainty). I like to keep the details of sensory experience and other aspects of memory perfectly preserved so that my subsequent impressions do not contaminate them, but I am also very practical and I tend to experience things in the here and now, rather than being imaginative or planning for the future, which I do as an afterthought if at all. I live in the present b/c I like to get things done and I don't like to depend on past expectations in the future. I also realize that I do not have any set long-term goals - the ideal strategies that I follow tend to be short-term and usually represent goals that are related to the acquisition of tactical resources. I am very skeptical of semantic arguments or procedural techniques that are not reproducible. When I try to be intuitive, like by imagining, brain-storming, or free-associating, most of what I get is just random noise, and when I am not trying to use it it becomes a distraction from what is actually important to me; however, I do not require the use of intuition in normal life, and I can exist without it indefinitely. I have a tendency to know what is happening all around me at all times, I even know what is happening behind me without looking, usually with regard to Se. I also can remember something much more quickly when I am presented with one of its constituents, no matter how obscure, in a direct sensory interaction rather than by an indirect or general description, from which I may be otherwise very slow to recognize something specific even if it is very common and familiar (for instance, I can name movies I have only quickly glimpsed but never watched even many years later, or work out melodies I have heard but never played before in my mind using reference pitches from songs I remember distinctly; however, I tend to be slower than others at guessing games like charades that involve vague or incomplete descriptions). When I was young I tended to be more focused on my personal space, personal possessions, and the order inherent in my interaction with the world, to the point of being obsessive-compulsive. Though I was different, I never let anyone take my attention away from what I thought was important, and I never let my intuitive impulses get in the way of watching everything suspiciously. This probably contributed at an early age to my introversion and stubbornness, but I do not regret it. I have a very 'can-do/do-it-yourself' attitude. I realized from a young age that attacks formed from intuition represented unfounded speculation, and that feeling is subjective and does not constitute much of a direct personal attack. Therefore I decided to employ thinking and sensing, which are much harder to deter. I am far more likely to use intuition when I am isolated and sensing when I am surrounded, in fact I have a habit of dreaming when I feel alone and acting suspicious in social situations (this is actually a very extreme manifestation of the ST 'guardian temperament'; in public I will watch unflinchingly my belongings and focus on my priorities despite any inclination or temptation to ignore them, and I have been criticized for this behavior as being too serious, paranoid, or controlling by my more light-hearted companions). I also do things that are typical of LSIs, for instance in high school I used to sing to my sweetheart in Hebrew over the phone on my break, and I liked to play guitar for my friends at parties. I really like formal/impersonal settings and planned activities, and pointless activities wear on my patience. I like to initiate contact with others to suit my objective and I can appear quite unapproachable, unstoppable, or even belligerent if I so choose. I like to size everyone up physically and watch them constantly for changes in behavior; I am very self-conscious, I don't like to present a weak, negative, or unreasonable impression but ultimately I would rather avoid people who ultimately only understand physical deterrence; at that point I begin to treat them only like unfeeling objects. I used to train three times a week in Krav Maga, which is Israeli martial arts, and I am enlisted in the Navy, but I rarely express myself using violence (however last semester I punched a hole in the kitchen wall over a girl who didn't return my affection). I don't like to cut corners even when I intuit short-cuts, and often I won't even do so for convenience so that I can be a supportive role model and preserve my own work ethic. In class I tend to ignore people who are looking for a distraction or an excuse not to work. When I interact I usually ignore people whose opinions are already in conflict with mine, which forces me to seek like-minded individuals who can help me develop the perspective I have already justified in my mind. I used to read the dictionary and encyclopedia as a child, and I have learned that this is typical for an LSI. I talk to myself when I am thinking and make gestures when I am talking to others so that I have less trouble following myself as I try to express my thoughts (due to interference from an unrestrained but deficient Ne; I believe that my intuition and feeling often combine to make me act in an obsessive-compulsive manner, and I have the most success in neutralizing this disorder when I emphasize Ti and Se).

[FDG]

I realized from a young age that attacks formed from intuition represented unfounded speculation, and that feeling is subjective and does not constitute much of a direct personal attack. Therefore I decided to employ thinking and sensing, which are much harder to deter.

Unfounded speculation? And how does the fact that feeling is subjective make it less of a function? You understand that this way you're basically shitting any type which is not an ST? You should absolutely be more objective in your evalutation of the types and not so biased in favor of yourself. Moreover, it is not possible for a person to "decide" to use a particular fuction.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

@Huitz, there are no fallacies there. Everything I know there happened in a public conversation, unless of course you would like to say everyone is lying, and would tell same lie, which is even more likely.

You are brainwashed about what type you think you are. And of course it's in your right to think what type you want to be, but correct me if i'm wrong-you made a thread to query your type, I respond to that because I have the correct knowledge to give in regards to what type you are. So I have no qualms about posting on a type thread on this basis. If you don't want to listen anymore, and it seems like that (you've also done nothing to explain the discrepencies in ISTj) then that is up to you also. Don't you want to make sure you get your type right?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Unfounded speculation? And how does the fact that feeling is subjective make it less of a function? You understand that this way you're basically shitting any type which is not an ST? You should absolutely be more objective in your evalutation of the types and not so biased in favor of yourself. Moreover, it is not possible for a person to "decide" to use a particular fuction.

You've noticed that too? He's also said that he hates Delta and Gamma, because they value Fi.

And I agree, we don't decide to use a function, it simply isn't the way it works.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

@Huitz, there are no kids there. Everything I know there happened in a public conversation, unless of course you would like to say everyone is lying, and would tell same lie, which is even more likely.

In regards to the SP thread you posted on Socionics.com (which SG deleted), you acquired the quotes from searching the chatbox; you said so yourself. What you found was a list of quotes about ENFp, with no context whatsoever. I've done the search myself to confirm it. I'm not saying everything he does is right; and he doesn't expect me to. But some of your claims were unfounded.

I was the one whom Huitz was helping to decide between ENFp and INFp. So I know what he was talking about in that situation.

Ryene do not even listen to Cyclops, he has no business being here, and he had no interest in this thread until he found another opportunity to demean me in it.

That's sweet of you, Huitz, but I can take care of myself.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

In regards to the SP thread you posted on Socionics.com (which SG deleted), you acquired the quotes from searching the chatbox; you said so yourself. What you found was a list of quotes about ENFp, with no context whatsoever. I've done the search myself to confirm it.

I was the one whom Huitz was helping to decide between ENFp and INFp. So I know what he was talking about in that situation.



That's sweet of you, Huitz, but I can take care of myself.

This is getting ridiculous, are you trying to find his type or not? However, in regards to what you are saying, I was there at the time that these, and many other things were said, I simply was not able to post all of the time.

It seems to me your just looking to get involved to excercise your Se

[Cuddly McFluffles]

This is getting ridiculous, are you trying to find his type or not? However, in regards to what you are saying, I was there at the time that these, and many other things were said, I simply was not able to post all of the time.

It seems to me your just looking to get involved to excercise your Se

I'm not talking about his type at the moment. If he wants to be ISTj, fine. Doesn't bother me. Yes, he said the things that you say he did. Apparently, I'm much better at letting them go than you are. I want to wring his neck because he's overgeneralizing, but I don't take them personally. Maybe 'cause it's not my quadra that's being insulted.

You can make assumptions about my motives all you want. However, I'd be rather fascinated to see you arrive at the right conclusion.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I'm not talking about his type at the moment. If he wants to be ISTj, fine. Doesn't bother me.

You can make assumptions about my motives all you want. However, I'd be rather fascinated to see you arrive at the right conclusion.

What are your motives?

[Phaedrus]

The last post of Huitzilopochtli is quite impressive in the sense that he makes a very good case for LSI. I have to be open for the possibility that his high IQ has clouded the impression of his real type and that he might be an LSI after all. What is indisputably clear, however, is that he is a leading type, and that his writing style is full of .

Those who argue that Huitzi is an ILI or some other obscure type are just incompetent at typing and don't understand the types. There is also no question, not a shred of a doubt, that Huitzi is a rational type, a J type in both Socionics and MBTT. Those who have read what he has said about himself in various posts and still doubt that he is j, well they deserve no respect in this matter, because to suggest that Huitzi could be an irrational type, a p type, is so increadibly stupid and incompetent that the person suggesting is an insult to intelligence in general. I hate such incompetence.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

My first reason for stepping in was because frankly, I'm tired of watching you two point fingers at each other when you're both wrong in how you handle this. I've been tired of it. As for my siding with him, first, he's my friend and I really don't like you much anymore; second, as I said, I think you handled things poorly, which has factored into my further-lowered opinion of you. If I can discredit you in public regarding that situation, all the better. In retrospect, I had a weak argument. *shrugs* It happens.

Yeah, looking back, I am using some Se. Se blocked with Fi, actually.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I'm in this for different reasons.

1. He is my friend and I really don't like you much anymore.
2. I think your actions regarding what happened with him were wrong. If I can prove your wrongness in public, all the better. In retrospect, I had a weak argument. *shrugs* It happens.

Yeah, looking back, I am using some Se. Se blocked with Fi, actually.

My purpose is to make points in regards to what type he is, if you read through the thread you will see this.

In regards to your motives being personal, and that you don't like me, i'll remember that.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

My purpose is to make points in regards to what type he is, if you read through the thread you will see this.

In regards to your motives being personal, and that you don't like me, i'll remember that.

I have, and I couldn't tell. *shrugs* My apologies.

Not my problem; it might've come out eventually, anyway. My edited post still makes the same point, but you might read over it nonetheless.

[Nexus]

Unfounded speculation? And how does the fact that feeling is subjective make it less of a function? You understand that this way you're basically shitting any type which is not an ST? You should absolutely be more objective in your evalutation of the types and not so biased in favor of yourself. Moreover, it is not possible for a person to "decide" to use a particular fuction.

You are incorrect, it is possible to influence type but few are inclined to break their most ingrained habits. What someone believes will certainly influence what functions they use, especially when they are young and the psyche is still in development. I never said that intuition and feeling were less useful psychological functions, I said that they were useless to me and I stated my reasoning. If you attack me based on intuition rather than logic you will have a hard time convicting me in a court of law. What if it is coincidence? If I am not responsive to emotional persuasion, what can you do about it? Furthermore, are you suggesting that if I surmise using logic that something dangerous is approaching, that I cannot decide to try to sense it? Unless you can prove that types never shift and are genetically predetermined, you will have a very hard time defending your claim.

The last post of Huitzilopochtli is quite impressive in the sense that he makes a very good case for LSI. I have to be open for the possibility that his high IQ has clouded the impression of his real type and that he might be an LSI after all. What is indisputably clear, however, is that he is a Ti leading type, and that his writing style is full of Ti.

Those who argue that Huitzi is an ILI or some other obscure type are just incompetent at typing and don't understand the types. There is also no question, not a shred of a doubt, that Huitzi is a rational type, a J type in both Socionics and MBTT. Those who have read what he has said about himself in various posts and still doubt that he is j, well they deserve no respect in this matter, because to suggest that Huitzi could be an irrational type, a p type, is so increadibly stupid and incompetent that the person suggesting is an insult to intelligence in general. I hate such incompetence.

Thank you Phaedrus. I completely agree with your conclusions with the exception of name-calling.

In regards to the SP thread you posted on Socionics.com (which SG deleted), you acquired the quotes from searching the chatbox; you said so yourself. What you found was a list of quotes about ENFp, with no context whatsoever. I've done the search myself to confirm it. I'm not saying everything he does is right; and he doesn't expect me to. But some of your claims were unfounded.

I was the one whom Huitz was helping to decide between ENFp and INFp. So I know what he was talking about in that situation.

That's sweet of you, Huitz, but I can take care of myself.

I appreciate that you confirmed that Cyclops was stealing from our private conversation and acting like it was a personal attack against him. I didn't want to mention you by name but it was so obvious that those quotes were either out-of-context or just lies.

This is getting ridiculous, are you trying to find his type or not? However, in regards to what you are saying, I was there at the time that these, and many other things were said, I simply was not able to post all of the time.

It seems to me your just looking to get involved to excercise your Se

You quoted something from a private conversation between me and Ryene in which we were trying to determine her type, and she has just confirmed that. When were you there? How are you involved?

You've noticed that too? He's also said that he hates Delta and Gamma, because they value Fi.

You are delusional. I never said anything remotely like that.

@Huitz, there are no fallacies there. Everything I know there happened in a public conversation, unless of course you would like to say everyone is lying, and would tell same lie, which is even more likely.

You are brainwashed about what type you think you are. And of course it's in your right to think what type you want to be, but correct me if i'm wrong-you made a thread to query your type, I respond to that because I have the correct knowledge to give in regards to what type you are. So I have no qualms about posting on a type thread on this basis. If you don't want to listen anymore, and it seems like that (you've also done nothing to explain the discrepencies in ISTj) then that is up to you also. Don't you want to make sure you get your type right?

You are the only one making this claim - please speak for yourself, but not on this thread because I refuse to respond to your inane claims any longer. This isn't your personal arena.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

You are incorrect, it is possible to influence type but few are inclined to break their most ingrained habits. What someone believes will certainly influence what functions they use, especially when they are young and the psyche is still in development. I never said that intuition and feeling were less useful psychological functions, I said that they were useless to me and I stated my reasoning. If you attack me based on intuition rather than logic you will have a hard time convicting me in a court of law. What if it is coincidence? If I am not responsive to emotional persuasion, what can you do about it? Furthermore, are you suggesting that if I surmise using logic that something dangerous is approaching, that I cannot decide to try to sense it? Unless you can prove that types never shift and are genetically predetermined, you will have a very hard time defending your claim.



Thank you Phaedrus. I completely agree with your conclusions.



I appreciate that you confirmed that Cyclops was stealing from our private conversation and acting like it was a personal attack against him. I didn't want to mention you by name but it was so obvious that those quotes were either out-of-context or just lies.



You quoted something from a private conversation between me and Ryene in which we were trying to determine her type, and she has just confirmed that. When were you there? How are you involved?



You are delusional. I never said anything remotely like that.



You are the only one making this claim - please speak for yourself, but not on this thread because I refuse to respond to your inane claims any longer. This isn't your personal arena.

All of what you say in regards to me is incorrect. This is about finding your type, something we've been discussing for a while. If calling yourself ISTj means so much to you then fine, do so. I'm tired of your personal attacks, and I do not wish to get involved with them myself. I don't agree with a lot of the socionics you have been saying here (and discussing your type and socionics should be the main converse, and points i've raised have been very much largely relevant to that), but I don't see how we will resolve that if we cannot communicate. Like I said earlier, calm down and all the best.

[Ezra]

Huitzilopochtli, stick Ne in your signature. You're an LII. I can assure you.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I appreciate that you confirmed that Cyclops was stealing from our private conversation and acting like it was a personal attack against him. I didn't want to mention you by name but it was so obvious that those quotes were either out-of-context or just lies.

I wouldn't call the chatbox private, Huitz; if it can be seen, it may be quoted. In the case of ENFps, I can't tell you why exactly he was upset; I can only speculate, and I prefer not to do that aloud. Referring to the quotes, I remember at least two of them, possibly three if he's referring to what I think he is, but I leave the third one to you. I understand his being upset over the others.

[Nexus]

Huitzilopochtli, stick Ne in your signature. You're an LII. I can assure you.

Why do you say that? I do have some LII attributes because I am a logical subtype; for instance, my expression is very controlled and rarely changes.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Nexus]

Huitzilopochtli, do you use to take a job "step-by-step right the way" - or - do you use to "get prepared" and "wait for the right moment"?

It depends on the job. I try to plan for the worst case scenario first but since there are so many things that can fail I am ultimately forced to improvise as necessary when something finally occurs (this is both a manifestation of the sensor preference for dealing with the present rather than the future and also the 'carefree' Reinin trait that is associated with LSI). For this reason physical speed (j) in thought (Ti) and action (Se) are of great consequence to me.

[Nexus]

All of what you say in regards to me is incorrect. This is about finding your type, something we've been discussing for a while...but I don't see how we will resolve that if we cannot communicate.

()
LSI
ISTj
(^ (^ TiSe ^) ^)
Pragmatic Temperament
Introverted Rational
Aggressor Romance
Logical Subtype
Beta Quadrant

[Nexus]

tactical, logical, N. not ISTj imo. i think ILE fits quite well. merry>serious, ILE>ILI.

LSI is tactical, logical, and merry as well.
You are the first to have typed me as ILE.
Your other type tests suggest otherwise:

100% - ISTJ (Максим Горький, ЛСИ)

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request