Munenori On Why He Is SEI

[Rubicon]

I'm actually glad I didn't have to force him to make the change. SEI is a far more suitable typing for him, and I had a lot of trouble seeing him as an EII. So, full respect to him for that.

[Mediator Kam]

indeed.

[dbmmama]

indeed.

+1

[BurntOrange]

lol ty Jem

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Munenori has changed somewhat since I joined the forum. At first INFj fitted him well, I even recall him being somewhat philosophically inclined and like a "humanitarian" in his posts, which could be said to tie in with the NF club. I had no real reason to doubt his IJ temperament and didn't get lots of Fe impression from when I read his posts.

But lately his posts and his input seem to be different, like he's trying to show more Fe and trying to be more of an "S" type, and I don't know why. I'm not sure if an SEI typing has been "forced" upon him or if he is just being himself more, or maybe it's cause i've seen his posting for a little longer now.

What do you think Munenori?

[xyz]

Munenori has changed somewhat since I joined the forum. At first INFj fitted him well, I even recall him being somewhat philosophically inclined and like a "humanitarian" in his posts, which could be said to tie in with the NF club. I had no real reason to doubt his IJ temperament and didn't get lots of Fe impression from when I read his posts.

But lately his posts and his input seem to be different, like he's trying to show more Fe and trying to be more of an "S" type, and I don't know why. I'm not sure if an SEI typing has been "forced" upon him or if he is just being himself more, or maybe it's cause i've seen his posting for a little longer now.

What do you think Munenori?

I think it's because we're focusing too much on his behavior and not discussing his reasons for being a humanitarian, then switching to "sensor" attempts.

[Ezra]

You automatically assume force is a bad thing. There are different ways of forcing someone to do something, Jem.

[dbmmama]

You automatically assume force is a bad thing. There are different ways of forcing someone to do something, Jem.

but, what i don't like is when someone comes right out and says it the way you did as if it's your "right" to force anyone to do anything.

free choice, free will, man.

helping someone see what you see is one thing, but then it's up to them to decide for themselves.

[Rubicon]

You automatically assume force is a bad thing. There are different ways of forcing someone to do something, Jem.

Yeah - it's not so much the forcing as the Phaedrusical implication that your view of his type is undeniably correct ... when you've never even met the guy.

[munenori2]

First off, sorry I haven't given my whole spiel for why I'm thinking SEI yet. I sat down to write it yesterday and hammered out why I thought EII in the first place. Like I said, it's going to be pretty expansive, because what I'm trying to get down is basically what's been stewing in my head since April. Hopefully I can sit down and spew it all out by the end of today after I get some free time.

I'm trying really hard to make this good since I know the forum conception of my type seems to be pretty well ingrained by now and the only reason I haven't talked about this much sooner has a lot to do with the way people who change types often, or at all, tend to get grilled. So, basically, I've waited until I felt confident enough to really explain the reasoning that led me here.

Munenori has changed somewhat since I joined the forum. At first INFj fitted him well, I even recall him being somewhat philosophically inclined and like a "humanitarian" in his posts, which could be said to tie in with the NF club. I had no real reason to doubt his IJ temperament and didn't get lots of Fe impression from when I read his posts.

But lately his posts and his input seem to be different, like he's trying to show more Fe and trying to be more of an "S" type, and I don't know why. I'm not sure if an SEI typing has been "forced" upon him or if he is just being himself more, or maybe it's cause i've seen his posting for a little longer now.

What do you think Munenori?

SEI hasn't been forced on me at all. I've pretty much harbored doubts about my type for quite a while. Bit by bit and with some helpful insight from some bright people, it's made it easier to really step back and look at not just the way I behave, but what lies beneath it. A lot of it has been sifting through what's gone on in my life to see exactly how some of the things I considered relevant weren't as type-related as I thought.

I definitely agree that I've changed. If I had to characterize that change, for me this is the way I tend to be when I've started to come out of my shell with people and act naturally without trying to make an impression. More coming soon!

[BurntOrange]

I definitely agree that I've changed. If I had to characterize that change, for me this is the way I tend to be when I've started to come out of my shell with people and act naturally without trying to make an impression. More coming soon!

Man, I have to fight this all the time. I know how to act to appeal to anyone, but if I fall into the trap of going against just acting naturally I feel a lot less comfortable with myself.

that as well. without meeting people in person, what people write on here doesn't convey the "whole" of them. that was proved so fricken much when meeting blaze and bg. my guess is that 80% of the people here have their type wrong.

I've actually entertained this idea before, but in the end I dismissed it as unlikely. I mean, there are a lot of typings based on vague associations with other people, and I think this forum environment does have an increased susceptibility to this, as it's much harder to be right about these intuitions when just dealing with carefully chosen text and no non-verbal or spur of the moment communication.

Due to that, I have questioned whether a fallacy of circular logic where say we decide that everyone that's like 1 or 2 people are that type, but say they've mistyped themselves/been mistyped and so then we're actually typing a bunch of people of the wrong type because of that initial mistake that we can't see. All people like person X are type Y, and type Y is always like people X because they're all the same and typed that way. It also could happen where we use traits not socionics related to type someone, and therefore the definition of that type becomes trait X. Where person(s) X has trait Z and is type Y, so everyone with trait Z is type Y, and type Y has trait Z because everyone that is that type has it. The logic that lead to that typing paradigm needs to be right or else typing that way is forever based off that initial fallacy.

That said, I pretty quickly dismissed all that as very unlikely because when I considered an objective functional analysis of people without regard for their own typings or other peoples timings, it seemed to match a lot more often than not. Besides, that assumes an overwhelming incompetence in the forum when it comes to considering themselves and their relationships, and is contingent on everyone that has met IRL being completely wrong about what happened their too. IMO the data is easier to read as confirming that we're mostly on the right track than the wrong one at this point, at least to me.

So yeah, I understand where you're coming from but I can't really find any evidence for it. I'd probably randomly guess closer to 80/20 right than 80/20 wrong.

[Wittmont]

Yeah I am more along BurntOrange numbers, but definitely the forum is not perfectly typed so to speak.

[dbmmama]

Man, I have to fight this all the time. I know how to act to appeal to anyone, but if I fall into the trap of going against just acting naturally I feel a lot less comfortable with myself.



I've actually entertained this idea before, but in the end I dismissed it as unlikely. I mean, there are a lot of typings based on vague associations with other people, and I think this forum environment does have an increased susceptibility to this, as it's much harder to be right about these intuitions when just dealing with carefully chosen text and no non-verbal or spur of the moment communication.

Due to that, I have questioned whether a fallacy of circular logic where say we decide that everyone that's like 1 or 2 people are that type, but say they've mistyped themselves/been mistyped and so then we're actually typing a bunch of people of the wrong type because of that initial mistake that we can't see. All people like person X are type Y, and type Y is always like people X because they're all the same and typed that way. It also could happen where we use traits not socionics related to type someone, and therefore the definition of that type becomes trait X. Where person(s) X has trait Z and is type Y, so everyone with trait Z is type Y, and type Y has trait Z because everyone that is that type has it. The logic that lead to that typing paradigm needs to be right or else typing that way is forever based off that initial fallacy.

That said, I pretty quickly dismissed all that as very unlikely because when I considered an objective functional analysis of people without regard for their own typings or other peoples timings, it seemed to match a lot more often than not. Besides, that assumes an overwhelming incompetence in the forum when it comes to considering themselves and their relationships, and is contingent on everyone that has met IRL being completely wrong about what happened their too. IMO the data is easier to read as confirming that we're mostly on the right track than the wrong one at this point, at least to me.

So yeah, I understand where you're coming from but I can't really find any evidence for it. I'd probably randomly guess closer to 80/20 right than 80/20 wrong.

thanks, great to hear from another who has been thinking these thoughts too. it's kinda funny because i wish that there wasn't any interaction between people to figure out their type. that gets in the way. and yet, ironically, it's based on interactions. lol