My typeup for discussion

[Creepy-Cyclops]

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?

What is it that confuses you?

[Gilly]

My personal impression has always been EIE, fwiw.

[unefille]

This is just a very quick reply, but I think everything you mentioned about pleasing your father sounded much more 9 like than 3. Whilst it can be said (rather reductively) that 3s seek approval from other people, it's never as direct as listening to the demands of others and then seeking to please them. The 3 is quite a narcissistic type and to the extent that you 'achieve' for 'others', it is done indirectly - you're not responding to what they actually want form you, but rather what you yourself think they should want from you. In other words, what guides your actions is not an overt concern with other people's pleasures, wants or desires, but your own interpretation of what the world around you values.

Your interaction style, where you actively seek various opinions and different viewpoints, acting as an accommodating medium for the disparate perspectives that you gather also seems like a very 9 approach to things. Even if facile, you seem to have a 9ish investment in real consensus, and you engage everyone's viewpoints and seem to assign them equal value.

It's possible that you might have 3/4 in your trifix, but I think your primary type is 9 with a strong 1 wing.

[Phaedrus]

Material from some site:

Enneagram Type Three (the Achiever) with Enneagram Type Nine (the Peacemaker)

What Each Type Brings to the Relationship
This is a fairly common pairing. Nines bring enormous support, encouragement, and a sense of pride in the Three's accomplishments. Threes can feel that with the Nine behind them, they are able to be themselves, explore their potential, and become the best mate, friend, or professional that they can be. Threes can help Nines to properly value themselves, to have more self-respect, and to invest in their own development. Nines can help Threes relax and find enjoyment in simple things—Nines give them permission to not drive themselves so much. Both types also want to avoid conflicts and to put a positive spin on things—Nines are genuinely optimistic and look on the bright side, while Threes focus on being positive and hopeful, and are careful to not let people see them being down or depressed. Both types are sociable, idealistic, caring for children, animals, and the underdog. Both are usually hard working and want to achieve a degree of material success that will enable them to take care of others in a kind of extended family where everyone would be safe, comfortable, and thriving. They both want a pleasant, aesthetically pleasing home.

To this mix, Threes bring energy, personal ambition, flexibility, the ability to set and achieve long term goals, and efficiency. Threes energize Nines and bring change and excitement to the relationship. Nines bring a feeling of safety and steadiness, the assurance that the Three is loved for themselves and not just for their achievements, and the feeling of not being judged or evaluated at every moment. Threes feel that they can let down their hair and really be themselves with Nines who accept them just as they are. The sensuality of the Nine and the attractiveness of the Three can meet in a couple highly attracted to each other and attached by physical passion. In other Three-and-Nine couples, the need for comfort and security may be the main source of attachment and the pleasure they get from each other.

Potential Trouble Spots or Issues
The Three/Nine couple can almost be a case of "too much of a good thing." Because both types are attracted to keeping the positive values in their lives alive—and there can be so much attachment to comfort and stability in their world—that it becomes difficult to question the status quo and the routines that they get into. Neither wants to bring up conflicts that they have with the other. Nines are more likely not to want to talk about whatever is bothering them for fear of further endangering the relationship. But Threes also do not want to express their complaints because doing so will risk rejection and may also expose the fragility or even the falseness of their relationship. Nines feel that it is better not to say anything and to let things work out on their own, if that is at all possible. If Threes are heavily invested in having a "perfect marriage" to the outside world, it will be difficult to talk about their unhappiness in the relationship or the frustrations they are feeling.

Often the relationship will continue for a while as if nothing is wrong-even if it is essentially over. Eventually, however, Threes begin to feel unseen and unappreciated, and that the Nine is not really there for them—not really present to the relationship. The Nine may be an excellent provider in a material sense, but under stress, may begin to become emotionally absent. Feeling abandoned or rejected usually makes Threes become depressed, although often they do not realize this since they can get quite out of touch with their emotions. Threes can feel that Nines are stifling them, whereas Nines can feel that Threes are too demanding and are "spoiled." Sometimes a crisis, an affair, or some other major life challenge brings the deterioration of the relationship into awareness. They may go through cycles of breaking up and getting back together, although if the underlying problems are not resolved, the real feelings and frustrations continue and will eventually undermine the relationship.

[Phaedrus]

lol... Are you comparing my Persona-Ego relation to that of a married couple?

(that kind of makes me feel a little crazy)

It does describe my internal battles quite well, though... I'll just start reading the horoscope instead. I see connections everywhere.

Are you a fucking moron or what? Can't you draw any conclusions of your own? You should focus on and compare the described behaviours and attitudes of each type. They are fairly well and correctly described in this description, and the essential differences between 3s and 9s come to light. If you can't see that you are blind and stupid, and it would be a waste of time to try to help you find your type.

(Ethical types are often really bad at logical reasoning, that's just a fact.)

[Creepy-Cyclops]

If you score highly on a 4, you've been typed in person as a 4, sounds above you may have some sort of identity related 4 issue, why are you not a 4?

[Phaedrus]

(and logical types are sometimes really bad at understanding self irony...)

Irony has no place in these discussions, if you want them to be serious instead of the extremely low-level chit-chats that is the only kind of discussions the majority of people are capable of having.

I understood your intent. But as you might understand if you reread MY answer, I feel like both - one is my Persona, one is my Ego. I behave like a 3, I feel like a 9.

And you are proving one of my points. You are not good at logical reasoning, and your judgment is bad as well. How can you not see the obvious differences between 3s and 9s and determine for sure which type you are not? That's insane.

Every 3 is extraverted. Their typical temperament is EP. It's all about surface for them. They are the opposite of a deep thinker. Prototype is ESTp/ESFp.

Every 9 is introverted. Every 9 has an IP temperament, and a typical 9 has always Fe in the ego block. Prototype is ISFp.

[Jarno]

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.

[Slacker]

In contrary to IEE, who's full with energy, always and everywhere.

Huh???

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Huh???

You must be able to realise this general trend in your interaction with your ISTp

[Slacker]

You must be able to realise this general trend in your interaction with your ISTp

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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Jarno]

Wow, you are truly an elitist prick.

Excuse me for having an opinion.

[Gilly]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Slacker]

<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:

All NFs are strong in Ne and Ni, (and Fe and Fi) so if your'e looking at those IEs it might not be as clear to you as if you look at the functions that are weak. Do you prefer Si or Se? Ti or Te? Try considering those rather than your strong functions and see if things get clearer.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

All NFs are strong in Ne and Ni, (and Fe and Fi) so if your'e looking at those IEs it might not be as clear to you as if you look at the functions that are weak. Do you prefer Si or Se? Ti or Te? Try considering those rather than your strong functions and see if things get clearer.

You are still saying this

[Slacker]

You are still saying this

Yes, because this is a Socionics forum, and so people here are presumably still typing using the primary Socionics model.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

The thing that confuses me is that I'm not at all convinced I'm Ip>Ep when it comes to temperament.

I have to understand the differences between introversion and extroversion before deciding my type, and so far I haven't found any definitions that make me see it clearly.

Oke just a random test that comes to my mind. See which fits you best.

You are sitting with a group of +/- 10 people around a large table. The people then usually can easely be divided in two types.

Extraverts:
The people who take care of the talking, although inconspicuously, they start/choose the subjects. They sometimes can be loud or laugh out loud, since they uncounsciously need attention. When these people are not around, then there is little talking.

Introverts:
They like it when some extraverts are present at the table, because they like someone else to start with a subject. So they can listen and respond. If extraverts aren't at the table, these people still do talk, but usually only to their neighbour. These people don't like to draw to much attention on them, especially not with large groups like 10 people.

Another less accurate difference: In case of free choice, Introverts tend to sit at the end / side of the table, Extraverts prefer the middle.

Which fits your style?

[Jarno]

I would seriously rather have a tooth pulled than sit around a table with ten people as a group

I had a sort of lunch break at work in my mind. Then we usually are obliged to sit with 8 to 10 people. It's not all night, just half an hour.

But I read some small hints in your respons that would point more toward introversion then extraversion. This could become interesting...

[Jarno]

Not sure that helped at all.

All the bits of information help. I'm starting to think you're an IEI althoug I'm a bit reserved in that opinion since you started out typing yourself as an Extravert.

Ethical types are always people orientated, which make it somewhat more difficult to separate an introvert from an extravert.

I'll post again if some new useful questions come to my mind.

[Trevor]

I don't feel awkward at all going to lunch anymore, but the first 6 months I worked there I actually avoided lunch as I felt terribly awkward going there. And as none of the people from my department ever went, I didn't "have" to for the sake of bonding, so I ate in my office for half a year or so. Then one of the new guys from another department started to bring me for lunch, and by now I have managed to make the other people of my department go as well.

Not sure that helped at all.

Probably introvert.