My typeup for discussion

[Phaedrus]

Maybe not a real type description, but rather bombarding you with information that comes to my mind about these kind of people.

IEE: know how to play people, verbally strong, evolved language, large verbal dictionary. really charming personality. Can react really emotionally if things don't go as they like. Takes things personally. Likes writing with exaggareted visual words e.g.: She wore a once pearly white dress which had gotten a depressed grey tone blended with chocolate brown mud splatters.

ILE: prone to proving he's smarter then others (one upmanship). likes computers a lot, likes programming. likes discussions. Has extremely many ideas to solve things, make fun of things, do things. Usually slightly nerdy.

IEI: nearly all are natural born poets. They feel situations, environments and know what will happen. They are usually very inert, or lazy, although they sometimes do there best to adapt.
In contrary to IEE, who's full with energy, always and everywhere.

This is correct information. A little detail that comes to my mind when reading it is that IEEs are usually good at improvising. An example is the IEE master improviser Robin Williams: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evq8wnvTC3M&feature=related[/ame]

I haven't seen all of those videos, but a glimpse of a second at the beginning of part 5 of that interview indicated that it is probably good stuff. There's lots of other material on Williams out there too, I think.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Perhaps generally with my husband, but not, as the quote said, "always and everywhere".

Why not always and everywhere? An ENFp will always be more these things in comparison to an ISTp. That's socionics. Use the four dichotomies, type descriptions, reinin dichotomies, functions, your own experience of observations and you will see that it is the case. People round here try to blend these things into one generalisation, and seem to ignore the actual information before them.

[Phaedrus]

If the difference in how well the descriptions describe you is that obvious, honestly, I wouldn't look any further, except to study the functions for your own personal understanding. However that kind of gap in your tendency to relate to a description IS significant.

Don't let temperament get in your way; it is an incomplete, somewhat generalized picture of what it attempts to describe: leading functions. If you understand your leading function and identify with it, then temperaments are essentially useless.

Please totally disregard what this moron is telling you. He is completely clueless and doesn't understand the types.

[Slacker]

I have thought a lot about it, and I have read the descriptions of the elements in detail. However, as I read with my feelings, I'm afraid I have projected my own understanding of the definitions in each element, and I don't trust my understanding anymore. That's what I did with Fi when I typed myself IEE. I though a lot of my Fe was Fi, and only now I understand the difference for real. I do like Fi, but I seem to use Fe more. I know Fi-creative uses a lot of Fe too, and that this is not a proof.

Fwiw, I like both Si and Se, i think. I tend to completely not take care of myself, so I need Si, I guess. But as far as I can understand that could be both an IEE and an IEI trait. I think Se somehow focuses me, energizes me (my father is probably SLE and has that effect on me), and I kind of like that. I know that sounds IEI, but as I said I don't know if I can trust my understanding of Se.

I think I use a lot of Ti. It's natural for me due to my kind of work. I'm good at it, as long as I understand "the whole picture". Te is a blur for me. I haven't really managed to understand what it's about. Again I know it seems IEI, but I don't trust my understanding of the elements, so I can't be certain.

I have heard it's not probable that an IEI would mistype themselves IEE, and that's what really makes me wonder.

FWIW, I identify with some of the IEEs, some of the IEIs and - for some reason - some of the SEIs of the forum. (I think my enneatype is E9w1, and that might explain the connection I feel with the SEIs, as the ones I have in mind are all E9s.)

First of all, I identify with all NFs here to some extent or another, and I think that's common. I did very early on consider IEI because I read the Ni and Fe descriptions, and thought, "hey I identify with those also." But like I said all NFs have Ni, Ne, Fi, and Fe in common so it isn't just whether you identify with Ni and Fe, but which sound more primary to your life. For me that's pretty clearly Ne and Fi.

You said you aren't clear about the differences between Si and Se, and Ti and Te, but maybe if you talk about what you think they are and what your experiences specifically are (without using any jargon - no "Se" or - just real language), we'll be able to tell which are things you value and which are things you don't.

I think all NFs have trouble taking care of ourselves to some extent. That is probably weak Si but whether you value it or not is another issue.

I don't have any feeling one way or the other at this point, but I'd say IEE or IEI rather than EIE if I had to guess.

[Slacker]

Why not always and everywhere? An ENFp will always be more these things in comparison to an ISTp. That's socionics. Use the four dichotomies, type descriptions, reinin dichotomies, functions, your own experience of observations and you will see that it is the case. People round here try to blend these things into one generalisation, and seem to ignore the actual information before them.

Nobody is always anything. Yes I am those things *in comparison to an ISTp* but not "always and everywhere", which is what was said.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Nobody is always anything. Yes I am those things *in comparison to an ISTp* but not "always and everywhere", which is what was said.

Then you are choosing to ignore socionics and your own observation(s). In overall behaviour a person will demonstrate the differences between extraverts and introverts. And you mentioned earlier you were following socionics in regards to model A statement. What information do you wish to use?

The difference between ENFp and INFp is apparent this way. They have a different focus and energy levels and the differences are observed as manifested by what Jarno said. IEE's always have more energy in comparison to an INFp.

Edit: Mimosa is trying to understand the differences in the types and the temperaments, and you are only confusing things.

[Slacker]

"Natural born poet" here.
(But I imagine also IEEs write poetry...?)

I'm nothing like Williams. God forbid I'd have to be in focus like that. brrrr... I don't believe all IEEs are like that, though?

I'm not like that, though I do have my goofier moments. Also, I don't think there is consensus about his type. He could be IEE, I don't have any real disagreement with that, but I wouldn't set him up as an archetype of one regardless.

[Slacker]

Then you are choosing to ignore socionics and your own observation(s). In overall behaviour a person will demonstrate the differences between extraverts and introverts. And you mentioned earlier you were following socionics in regards to model A statement. What information do you wish to use?

The difference between ENFp and INFp is apparent this way. They have a different focus and energy levels and the differences are observed as manifested by what Jarno said. IEE's always have more energy in comparison to an INFp.

Yes but she isn't comparing herself to someone else. She's looking just at herself. That isn't useful at all for typing. If you say that IEEs are full of energy "always and everywhere", that is not a statement of comparison.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Yes but she isn't comparing herself to someone else. She's looking just at herself. That isn't useful at all for typing. If you say that IEEs are full of energy "always and everywhere", that is not a statement of comparison.

She is trying to understand the difference between the types and the temperaments, and you are only confusing the issue. What she has said so far here is consistent with her being an EIE not an IEE. The more she understands the differences of the types, the dichotomy and the temperaments, and comparing that to herself then the more she can be sure of her type.

[Slacker]

She is trying to understand the difference between the types and the temperaments, and you are only confusing the issue. What she has said so far here is consistent with her being an EIE not an IEE. The more she understands the differences of the types, the dichotomy and the temperaments, and comparing that to herself then the more she can be sure of her type.

I think she's more likely IEI than EIE, but I haven't seen anything that rules out IEE yet so I think she should look into it more.

[Phaedrus]

I have thought a lot about it, and I have read the descriptions of the elements in detail. However, as I read with my feelings, I'm afraid I have projected my own understanding of the definitions in each element, and I don't trust my understanding anymore. That's what I did with Fi when I typed myself IEE.

That's what the "functions analysts" on this forum do all the time. They project their delusions and prejudices on their understanding of the functions, but they don't really understand the functions, because they don't understand how the functions manifest themselves in the behaviours and attitudes of real life people, because they don't understand the types, because they haven't studied the basics of Socionics, which is type profiles and dichotomies. And that's why the understanding of Socionics on this forum is so incorrect and such a complete mess.

I think I use a lot of Ti.

Most people don't understand Ti. If you want to understand it correctly, you should start with Jung's Psychological Types. Jung was an LII, and his explanation of the essential differences between Ti and Te is far better than almost anything written by any socionist since then. There are huge misconceptions of floating around.

It's natural for me due to my kind of work. I'm good at it, as long as I understand "the whole picture". Te is a blur for me. I haven't really managed to understand what it's about.

Agan, study Psychological Types (on the Internet if you don't have the book).

Again I know it seems IEI, but I don't trust my understanding of the elements, so I can't be certain.

Don't try to understand the elements. Keep your correct attitude on this. Don't listen to the siren songs from the brainwashers.

FWIW, I identify with some of the IEEs, some of the IEIs and - for some reason - some of the SEIs of the forum. (I think my enneatype is E9w1, and that might explain the connection I feel with the SEIs, as the ones I have in mind are all E9s.)

Every 9 has an IP temperament, and every 9 is described in the type profiles as having the kind of behaviours and attitudes that are linked to creative Fe. The best fit for type 9 is the SEI, and the only other type that fits reasonably well is the IEI.

[Phaedrus]

"Natural born poet" here.
(But I imagine also IEEs write poetry...?)

I'm nothing like Williams. God forbid I'd have to be in focus like that. brrrr... I don't believe all IEEs are like that, though?

No, they are not all like Williams. I just mentioned him because he is so good at improvising, and I have seen that ability (but to a lesser extent of course) in many other IEEs as well. But IEEs usually like to be in focus. They are natural born stage people, they are natural good speakers. They can probably excel in poetry slams, but IEIs are usually better writers and poets. IEIs are natural born writers, IEEs are not.

[Slacker]

No, they are not all like Williams. I just mentioned him because he is so good at improvising, and I have seen that ability (but to a lesser extent of course) in many other IEEs as well. But IEEs usually like to be in focus. They are natural born stage people, they are natural good speakers. They can probably excel in poetry slams, but IEIs are usually better writers and poets. IEIs are natural born writers, IEEs are not.

I think it depends on the type of writing. For instance, I studied writing but found, after studying fiction, poetry, etc., that I was best at journalism. So if you mean "artistic writing" I'd generally agree with you. Though Mark Twain was IEE and a wonderful fiction writer, his style is still different than an IEI - and in line with what you said, it's a style as if he were speaking out loud and just wrote down what he was saying. I don't disagree with you because I get your general point.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Take it easy. I'm not that easily distracted. And I'll not fall into any trap of typing myself through elements.

However, SlackerMom is the first IEE who has commented on my type, so I really, really appreciate her input.

Please continue in your own way SM!

I am taking it easy, I was going to post myself in order to look to identify your correct typing, but it seems Phaedrus is doing OK with that on his own. I decided to query SM on something she didn't agree on, that was correct. I've observed threads disintegrate into confusion over certain things before, and it's useful to query and clarify for that purpose, for you, for me or whoever else is reading, or for other similar threads. That was all. No probs though.

[Slacker]

The thing about that specific comment is that when I first came here I briefly thought I was IEI, and it was stuff like that - IEEs are ALWAYS full of energy EVERYWHERE - that had me confused. I'm have more energy than a lot of people, and certainly more than my ISTp husband or INFp friends, but I am not in any way full of energy always and everywhere. So I read that and thought, "Oh, well I generally fit with ENFp but I certainly couldn't say that, so I must be INFp." I think absolutes like that are what can be potentially confusing. Human beings are too complex for absolutes.

I don't have a problem with all of what Jarno wrote, I just have an aversion to things written with absolute language like that. I think it can mislead and confuse people.

[Phaedrus]

I think it depends on the type of writing. For instance, I studied writing but found, after studying fiction, poetry, etc., that I was best at journalism. So if you mean "artistic writing" I'd generally agree with you.

Yes, I mean artistic writing. And that IEEs are drawn to journalism and feel at home there seems to be a general phenomenon as well.

( ... Those two actually agree on something?! Is that a joke?)

Though Mark Twain was IEE and a wonderful fiction writer, his style is still different than an IEI - and in line with what you said, it's a style as if he were speaking out loud and just wrote down what he was saying.

That is also perfectly correct in my opinion. I think you can often tell whether a writer is introverted or extraverted by their style writing and their focus.

[Slacker]

( ... Those two actually agree on something?! Is that a joke?)

I have found myself agreeing with you pretty often lately, except for your absolute language and insults to people. But as far as Socionics goes, I'm starting to wonder if we're really just taking separate but parallel paths to the same place. Like the underlying truth that leads to what you look for is the same underlying truth that leads to what I look for. So we're looking at different specific things, but maybe they're caused by the same underlying thing and therefore maybe we're not as far apart as I once thought.

I'm not sure.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Just as a sort of random point, but related to this, I think you can tell if someone is a rational or an irrational depending on how they write, and I made a post about how to do it on JuJu's recent type thread (which he agreed applied to him.) I guess we can also tell someone temperament by how they write also.

[Slacker]

Just as a sort of random point, but related to this, I think you can tell if someone is a rational or an irrational depending on how they write, and I made a post about how to do it on JuJu's recent type thread (which he agreed applied to him.) I guess we can also tell someone temperament by how they write also.

I agree with that - I think writing style tells a great deal about people. Particularly lengthy writing. Writing of posts here is trickier because it isn't as complex, but it's still useful.

[Jarno]

I don't have a problem with all of what Jarno wrote, I just have an aversion to things written with absolute language like that. I think it can mislead and confuse people.

You are right.

I guess it's because I sometimes exaggerate, to widen the border between types.

[Phaedrus]

I have found myself agreeing with you pretty often lately, except for your absolute language and insults to people. But as far as Socionics goes, I'm starting to wonder if we're really just taking separate but parallel paths to the same place.

You are right. The strange thing has happened that you have recently started to post things, for example your comments about NF types being strong in both Fe and Fi, etc., that are correct and that I have to agree with as well.

Like the underlying truth that leads to what you look for is the same underlying truth that leads to what I look for. So we're looking at different specific things, but maybe they're caused by the same underlying thing and therefore maybe we're not as far apart as I once thought.

Your recent posts have indicated that we understand some things in Socionics the same way or at least agree on what the truth about some aspects of the types is. But every time you insist that I am probably an LSI I tend to lose very much of my respect for your competence.

[Slacker]

But every time you insist that I am probably an LSI I tend to lose very much of my respect for your competence.

You absolute language and insults come across as very heavy in to me.

[Phaedrus]

You absolute language and insults come across as very heavy in to me.

Have you read niffweed's ILI type profile at wikisocion, now recently discussed in Rick's thread? Nearly all aspects of my behaviour are correctly and accurately described there. Whatever you think you see in my language is not an indication that I am an ego type. So either there is something wrong with your understanding of the function or you misperceive and/or misinterpret what you observe in my behaviour.

[Slacker]

Have you read niffweed's ILI type profile at wikisocion, now recently discussed in Rick's thread? Nearly all aspects of my behaviour are correctly and accurately described there. Whatever you think you see in my language is not an indication that I am an ego type. So either there is something wrong with your understanding of the function or you misperceive and/or misinterpret what you observe in my behaviour.

I will admit that Niffweed has a similar joy in insulting others. However that's as far as I will go. My mind is always open though.

[Gilly]

Please totally disregard what this moron is telling you. He is completely clueless and doesn't understand the types.

Please totally disregard what this moron is telling you. He is completely clueless and doesn't understand the types.

[Gilly]

<3

I know you only want me to feel peace at mind, so thank you!

However... I feel I need to understand this. At the moment, the type I feel I am and the temperament I feel I am, don't tell the same story. The picture doesn't make sense. I have to understand it before settling for a type, and that means I have to understand introversion vs. extroversion.

I know I'm intuitive. I don't know if I use Ni>Ne as I don't really know the differences. Again I must understand introversion vs. extroversion to be certain to get the differences between the introverted and extroverted elements. If not, I'll just start to project meaning into the descriptions.

I'm complicated, I know.

:wink:

Here is what I see as a fundamental problem to your approach:

In Socionics, Extroversion and Introversion do not refer to behavioral tendencies, actual attitudes, or ways of perceiving reality that we can actively tell by observing our own behavior. It is a much more perceptually fundamental concept that the modern psychological or MBTI dichotomy of E and I. In Socionics, all that Introversion and Extroversion denote are, respectively, the propensity to more readily perceive the connections between objects, or the objects themselves (objects being a highly subjective term referencing not any concrete or physical definition, but simply what the brain naturally perceives as discrete entities). Even beyond that, this means absolutely nothing until it is grasped in the context of the first function, because without knowing your first function and the other "pieces" of the function that make it up, there is absolutely zero frame of reference as to what these terms actually mean with regards to your partiular type.

Now, granted, there are some correlating behaviors that can be used as a meter stick of sorts in the case that their is confusion between two similar types, but this happens to be a problem in your case: functionally speaking, IEE and IEI are two very different types. In Socionics, function use and preference are MUCH more significant to everything about a type than the ideas of introversion and extroversion. For example, an IEE uses Ni as its 7th function, often referred to as the "ignoring" function. This is because, as intuitive functions, both refer to methods of abstraction, and as types IEE and IEI tend to favor one heavily, meaning that the other is devalued to an equal extent. Therefore an IEE readily emphasizes Ne over Ni, and the IEI visa versa, making their methods of viewing reality highly divergent.

These are two of numerous reasons that I say that it is much more important to understand the functions than the isolated ideas of Introversion and Extroversion: because they refer solely to the attitude of the dominant function. By understanding your dominant function, you implicitly grasp whether you are an introtim or an extrotim, because in Socionics, the definition of Introtim or Extrotim refers to ONLY that: whether your primary function is Extroverted or Introverted. Your temperament is not a simplistic category defined by specific behaviors, but a direct reference to the nature of your leading function.

[Jarno]

"Natural born poet" here.

(But I imagine also IEEs write poetry...?)

As a matter of fact, I've read 2 poems from an IEI and 1 from an IEE. Although I'm aware that these are just a few examples, they had a strikingly different architecture.

IEE poem was a couple of pages long. But it looked more like a collection of rhyming words. It had no meaning, no goal, no climax, no fun. Her comment was: when I started writing, I kept on getting new ideas, without any effort. If I hadn't stopped it would have been even longer.

The IEI wrote a flowing story, with rarely used words in it, not the easy rhyming words. It had a perfectly timed humoristic climax at the end.

IMO(!) only IEI and ILI's are natural poets. It's the Ni that supplies them with the right imagination that keep the story going in the right direction.

[Gilly]

IMO(!) only IEI and ILI's are natural poets. It's the Ni that supplies them with the right imagination to keeps the story going in the right direction.

Wow, you are truly an elitist prick.

[Phaedrus]

In Socionics, Extroversion and Introversion do not refer to behavioral tendencies, actual attitudes, or ways of perceiving reality that we can actively tell by observing our own behavior. It is a much more perceptually fundamental concept that the modern psychological or MBTI dichotomy of E and I. In Socionics, all that Introversion and Extroversion denote are, respectively, the propensity to more readily perceive the connections between objects, or the objects themselves (objects being a highly subjective term referencing not any concrete or physical definition, but simply what the brain naturally perceives as discrete entities).

Totally false. All functions, all information aspects are manifested in the behaviours and attitudes of the types. And there is no difference whatsoever in what the terms "Extraversion" and "Introversion" refer to in different models. They always refer to the exact same observable phenomenon -- a phenomenon that is explained theoretically in Socionics by reference to the leading function of the type, that is in the exact same way as it is explained in MBTT.

Even beyond that, this means absolutely nothing until it is grasped in the context of the first function, because without knowing your first function and the other "pieces" of the function that make it up, there is absolutely zero frame of reference as to what these terms actually mean with regards to your partiular type.

Total bullshit. The kind of crap that people like our little Gilly guy here are spreading is always produced by people who are unable to spot these things in the real life people they come across. Extraversion and Introversion are (biological) phenomena that have been observed in people for centuries. Socionics has not added anything to our understanding of these phenomena besides a theoretical framework.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I doubt strong writing has anything to do with , or anything to do with socionics at all. I view as the movement of external objects. An EII or LII will perform 'staticy' and overly think things when they perform any action. It will look stiff, awkward and not in flux as it is their polr. I've noticed sometimes when an EII/LII even does something as simple as pick up a pencil it looks a bit out of place compared to other types.

Functions you are good at seem to have a natural versatility to them while still remaining their raw power. Especially your dominant function.

[Gilly]

Totally false. All functions, all information aspects are manifested in the behaviours and attitudes of the types. And there is no difference whatsoever in what the terms "Extraversion" and "Introversion" refer to in different models. They always refer to the exact same observable phenomenon -- a phenomenon that is explained theoretically in Socionics by reference to the leading function of the type, that is in the exact same way as it is explained in MBTT.


Total bullshit. The kind of crap that people like our little Gilly guy here are spreading is always produced by people who are unable to spot these things in the real life people they come across. Extraversion and Introversion are (biological) phenomena that have been observed in people for centuries. Socionics has not added anything to our understanding of these phenomena besides a theoretical framework.

Learn the cubic model, dipshit.

[Jarno]

Wow, you are truly an elitist prick.

Excuse me for having an opinion.

[Gilly]

Excuse me for having an opinion.

An exclusive, completely biased, and entirely unfounded opinion? Well, my friend, it is my opinion that people who make those kinds of presumptions should be eradicated.

[Jarno]

An exclusive, completely biased, and entirely unfounded opinion? Well, my friend, it is my opinion that people who make those kinds of presumptions should be eradicated.

ENFJ's and extermination hehe.

Ah well, go ahead and try to kill the whole world.

[Slacker]

There are no absolutes, so of course there are IEE poets. I would think that the styles of poetry would probably be different though.

[tereg]

Should I post some of the "poetry" that I've written?

[Slacker]

Should I post some of the "poetry" that I've written?

Only if you want people to tell you that you must be an INFp.

[tereg]

I wrote this in 2002, when I was going through one of those rut periods.

I'm beyond tired
I'm beyond hungry
Precious Sleep has forgotten me
I walk around in a daze wondering if I can act like I normally do

Then again, I feel as though I'll never be the same again
I say that as my head rests on the table in front of me
So tired...So weak...
Still so much to do

Images like collapsing, what is that?
Do I actually see humor in that?
Nothing is frightening me now; I'm spaced out
I'm in another dimension

How did I stay awake today?
How much longer can I go on like this?
I can't walk away...it's too easy
That would be the weak man's way out

The question is, is this isolated?
Will it happen again?
No time, no rest
No sleep, no time...

I think I had pulled an all-nighter or something. I don't really remember the context of this, but it wasn't drug or alcohol related

[tereg]

I've always preferred to write in the prose style.

Like I have some poetry that has more "form" or structure, maybe a rhyme here or there. But the tone in a lot of what I write is very free form and prose based.

[kensi]

I typed myself IEE almost immediately after entering this site, based on tests and my understanding of the descriptions.

However, I'm getting more and more confused.
(I have a feeling that is not uncommon in here)

I'm pretty certain I'm NF, probably irrational, but I can't completely exclude NT.

How should I proceed to figure out my type for certain?

The way you approach this has me interested.....


the very, very, very first thing that you need is a rough thesis before you actually look for every bit of information to support it. This rough thesis is what i call "za feel".(a rough but ready responsive feel about things). Upon consideration of all the circumstantial things that led you to the world of psychological functions...you should have this "za feel" (for lack of a better word)accept it!

Once you have this rough thesis (Za Feel)then you can actually go out looking for the real evidence for it. (this is where a lot of people begin to doubt themselves--at this stage). Once you have collected a lot of information...you will be able to go back and write the real thesis. This is where you wanna be----to know who you are and the supporting evidence to back you up. I'll warm you though that even once you write the real thing, you still will have doubts (unless you suffer from parochialism...like a few people on this forum)....but anyways...


1."Za Feel" works to label with most accuracy the vertical columns of my holography grid...that is.....ST,SF,NF, and NT. This should be the most obvious choice you have and in essence is the very beginning of "Za Feel". At no other point in time have you isolated the 2 base elements that form functions and identity themselves regardless of the potentiality of the configuration.

Do not pay any attention to E and I as they are information exchange pathways and highly reliant and repetitive, on and with, one another only to add to the confusion. As for J and P ,even more so,...they are a derivative and a superficial dichotomy (depending on your school of thought)and as such irrelevant in the beginning. With there being differences in MBTI and Socionics, and nevertheless attempting to preserve the integrity of 16 types (pardon the subtypes), lets leave p and J out of it.

If you listen to what i said and you can think it thru at its propper communication value, you will have started the understanding.

2. The very next thing you need to do is ask yourself am i a cold person or a warm person overall. You need to have an answer to this. Cold refers to "a final transferable and impersonal state" whereas "warm to a final transferable and personal state"

3. Having decided at #2...you must answer....If a situation comes up that must be dealt with:

a) if you answered above you are a warm person....

>am i cold to begin with but do i get warmer?
>am i warm to begin with but do i get colder?
>am i always warm (except for those little islands of coldness that come to me every blue moon when say the world offers me something to confide in and hide behind in )

a) if you answered above you are a cold person....

>am i cold to begin with but do i get warmer?
>am i warm to begin with but do i get colder
>am i always cold (except for those little islands of warmth that come to me every blue moon when say someone cheers me up)

This will not tell me everything to determine your type. This will tell me your "Swing-Type". Swing Type is independant of an actual temperamental preference (eg. Ip, Ep, Ej etc.). It too however will tell me your subtype preference which is a highly under-rated component (people of the same type can be radically different and not related to upbringing).

So as soon as you know the answers let me know, M.P., imo.

"I, for one, have always seen myself as an NF who is cold to begin with but gets warmer time and time agsin"....hence my subtype choice proportional to an NT reality. That is my "Za Feel". That is my rough Thesis. Those who know me IRL will agree quite comfortably. I may have tried looking at it other ways from time to time but.... this is the surest thing i have always known about myself. It forms my a priori position (at least to myself from the point of view of the phenomenology of type itself...for lack of a better designation)