Why is it so Difficult to Find your Type?

[jason_m]

I've noticed a couple things:

- 1) A large number of people on this website are unsure of their type.

- 2) A large number of people have changed their type over time.

I thought that this might have to do with the fact that, unlike the MBTI, socionics has no official way of determining one's type. However, neither does the Enneagram, and yet, from my experience, I haven't noticed the same degree of confusion amongst its users.

My question is, why is it so difficult? Is it the fact that there are inconsistent interpretations of the types? Is it that the descriptions are not down-to-earth enough? Or is it something else?

Answering these questions is useful, because it can improve how the descriptions are written. It would be especially useful if the people who fit one of the categories mentioned above would respond, so we have people who are actually experiencing this problem tell us why they are having (or have had) trouble.

I will say that I had trouble, because a lot of the INTj descriptions described things that are difficult for me to see in myself. I think I do use Ti a lot in my thinking, but not in the way it's usually described.

Jason

[Expat]

People change their own typing because in order to type yourself or anyone else, it's necessary to understand the theory. As your understanding of the theory increases, you may realize that your original typing was based on a flawed understanding. So it's best not to focus too much on getting it all right at once, give some time to understand the theory, and then see how it goes.

[snegledmaca]

For me it was roughly what expat is saying. As my understanding grew I saw that there were some errors in my type assessment so I abandoned it. However with that understanding did not come clarity, certainty about my type, as in, I was wrong here, now I know it, now I can move on. Instead what happened was that I had more room to interpret, to mentally expand on things. I could see possibilities, alternatives more easily. Question what I hold to be true more easily. Right now I can see many things as being possible, in one way or another, and I can't discount any of them as they all make sense on their own.

[Lotus]

People change their own typing because in order to type yourself or anyone else, it's necessary to understand the theory. As your understanding of the theory increases, you may realize that your original typing was based on a flawed understanding. So it's best not to focus too much on getting it all right at once, give some time to understand the theory, and then see how it goes.

This is why I couldn't find my type. I still don't understand the theory with confidence but I haven't really tried [as much as I can, at least] either. I don't want to use a model or someone else's system of typing until I can observe the differences myself. I have a vague idea of what each type is like, but I'm not satisfied with my understanding yet. I'm pretty sure of my type based on this but I'm still open to other typings.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I've noticed a couple things:

- 1) A large number of people on this website are unsure of their type.

- 2) A large number of people have changed their type over time.

I thought that this might have to do with the fact that, unlike the MBTI, socionics has no official way of determining one's type. However, neither does the Enneagram, and yet, from my experience, I haven't noticed the same degree of confusion amongst its users.

My question is, why is it so difficult? Is it the fact that there are inconsistent interpretations of the types? Is it that the descriptions are not down-to-earth enough? Or is it something else?

Answering these questions is useful, because it can improve how the descriptions are written. It would be especially useful if the people who fit one of the categories mentioned above would respond, so we have people who are actually experiencing this problem tell us why they are having (or have had) trouble.

I will say that I had trouble, because a lot of the INTj descriptions described things that are difficult for me to see in myself. I think I do use Ti a lot in my thinking, but not in the way it's usually described.

Jason

Here's something that contributes to it... I don't think you're INTj

[jason_m]

Here's something that contributes to it... I don't think you're INTj

So why do you think this and what type am I?

Jason

[Creepy-Cyclops]

So why do you think this and what type am I?

Jason

I was half joking, to be honest i've had an INTp (definately INxp) impression from you, but end of day you know yourself better than me, who's just read a few of your posts. So if you say INTj then fair enough mate.

[jessica129]

...and people who know nothing about you other than your online persona will surely throw at least 5 types out there, thus confusing you even more and possibly skewing your view of yourself which ultimately leads to another and another and another switch.

[JuJu]

...and people who know nothing about you other than your online persona will surely throw at least 5 types out there, thus confusing you even more and possibly skewing your view of yourself which ultimately leads to another and another and another switch.

yup

[Park]

People change their own typing because in order to type yourself or anyone else, it's necessary to understand the theory. As your understanding of the theory increases, you may realize that your original typing was based on a flawed understanding. So it's best not to focus too much on getting it all right at once, give some time to understand the theory, and then see how it goes.

+1

...and people who know nothing about you other than your online persona will surely throw at least 5 types out there, thus confusing you even more and possibly skewing your view of yourself which ultimately leads to another and another and another switch.

Word.

[Park]

Here's something that contributes to it... I don't think you're INTj

I don't think you're ISTp.

Jason, from how you appear to me on the forum I think you're most likely Ne ego. Aside from that, I can't tell.

[Nexus]

I don't think you're ISTp.

Jason, from how you appear to me on the forum I think you're most likely Ne ego. Aside from that, I can't tell.

I think Cyclops is -leading, LSE>LIE

[Phaedrus]

I think Cyclops is -leading, LSE>LIE

Either you are joking or you have just fallen in the trap and made exactly the same kind of idiotic mistake that I described in my previous post. You focus on the functions instead of the four dichotomies, and that is a big, big mistake. You correctly recognize Cyclops's , but you dismiss what we know about his temperament, his test results, and his identification with the four dichotomies. That evidence demonstrates with the utmost clarity that Cyclops is definitely not an LSE.

People make the exact same mistake when it comes to determining my type (which they shouldn't even try to do since that is a total waste of time in light of the fact that I have known my correct type for years now, and people should just accept what I say my type is, since I am immensely more capable than they are at determining it). People see my , because that is the function I almost always use in discussions and debates -- it is the only function they can see directly, unless they are more competent at spotting , which most of them are not, even though some members of this forum are exceptions. The problem, however, is that most people here doesn't understand the difference between creative and accepting , so many of them falsely believe that the I am showing in my posts is instead . All this typing circus, so popular among the members of this forum, contribute to the general mess and misunderstandings people have about the types.

[Nexus]

Either you are joking or you have just fallen in the trap and made exactly the same kind of idiotic mistake that I described in my previous post. You focus on the functions instead of the four dichotomies, and that is a big, big mistake. You correctly recognize Cyclops's , but you dismiss what we know about his temperament, his test results, and his identification with the four dichotomies. That evidence demonstrates with the utmost clarity that Cyclops is definitely not an LSE.

People make the exact same mistake when it comes to determining my type (which they shouldn't even try to do since that is a total waste of time in light of the fact that I have known my correct type for years now, and people should just accept what I say my type is, since I am immensely more capable than they are at determining it). People see my , because that is the function I almost always use in discussions and debates -- it is the only function they can see directly, unless they are more competent at spotting , which most of them are not, even though some members of this forum are exceptions. The problem, however, is that most people here doesn't understand the difference between creative and accepting , so many of them falsely believe that the I am showing in my posts is instead . All this typing circus, so popular among the members of this forum, contribute to the general mess and misunderstandings people have about the types.

You believe that Cyclops is introverted and perceiving? In my experience he likes to talk more than listen. How would you describe yourself as predominantly -leading rather than -leading? From what I have noticed, you are more ideologically self-assured than -leading types, which is something that I have noticed in most -leading types (such as strrrng, crazedrat, and to a lesser extent Niffweed17). -valuing is more common to those who want an open understanding of things, which is why I cannot identify with it. If I am not LSI, then I am more likely Gamma NT than Alpha or Delta (which I doubt).

[Phaedrus]

I've noticed a couple things:

- 1) A large number of people on this website are unsure of their type.

- 2) A large number of people have changed their type over time.

I thought that this might have to do with the fact that, unlike the MBTI, socionics has no official way of determining one's type. However, neither does the Enneagram, and yet, from my experience, I haven't noticed the same degree of confusion amongst its users.

My question is, why is it so difficult? Is it the fact that there are inconsistent interpretations of the types? Is it that the descriptions are not down-to-earth enough? Or is it something else?

The explanation is rather simple, actually. People focus on the functions (which they don't understand) and dismiss the four dichotomies and the descriptions of type related behaviours and attitudes in the type profiles as irrelevant. Adding to that idiotic behaviour, they also dismiss their own test results as irrelevant. By favouring that typing "method" they are doomed to go astray and form totally incorrect views on what types they are.

[Nexus]

People rarely understand at first what is meant by introversion and extroversion of functions...it was something I dismissed at first until I finally understood it and now I realize how important it is to socionics. It is also totally unambiguous and lends to a reliable typing methodology. Most people miss this and go by vague, subjective type descriptions and fall for the Forer effect.

BTW, Cyclops also mistyped me as ILI, and I had the same problems you have. Also, nowhere in your post do I see the slightest semblance of . FWIW, if you have trouble fitting LII you might want to check LSI. It's like LII but with less ambiguity and noise. How do you feel about creative ?

[jason_m]

BTW, Cyclops also mistyped me as ILI, and I had the same problems you have. Also, nowhere in your post do I see the slightest semblance of . FWIW, if you have trouble fitting LII you might want to check LSI. It's like LII but with less ambiguity and noise. How do you feel about creative ?

Actually, I identify with Ne more than any of the other functions. It's just that I have a hard time seeing it in a leading role, as in always looking for opportunities and seeing the potential in things.

Jason

[Nexus]

Actually, I identify with Ne more than any of the other functions. It's just that I have a hard time seeing it in a leading role, as in always looking for opportunities and seeing the potential in things.

Jason

Interesting. I am always afraid that I will become distracted or misled by it; and for most matters it doesn't serve as a substitute for motor-sensory experience. I fear that if I let it run wild I will be inconsistent and redundant, and that I will lack purpose and direction. I am also hesitant to use it extravertedly, since I doubt that anyone would relate to it and even if they did they would not be relating to me because I don't relate to it when it is used on me (my intuition is about as extroverted as is Plato's trapped prisoner watching shadows alone in his cave, and is almost never involved in any social interaction). I use Ne for short periods of time, to supplement and develop my Ni in short, self-consistent spurts, which is what I mainly rely on.

[tcaudilllg]

The explanation is rather simple, actually. People focus on the functions (which they don't understand) and dismiss the four dichotomies and the descriptions of type related behaviours and attitudes in the type profiles as irrelevant. Adding to that idiotic behaviour, they also dismiss their own test results as irrelevant. By favouring that typing "method" they are doomed to go astray and form totally incorrect views on what types they are.

It may be that you have misplaced confidence in your position.

[Phaedrus]

It may be that you have misplaced confidence in your position.

You illustrate my point perfectly, tcaudilllg. To believe that one is INTj and then change one's self-typing to ENFj is a very obvious example of the use of a very bad typing method, it is a perfect example of a person who doesn't understanding the functions and how they relate to himself, to his behaviour and attitudes, and to the type profiles. Of course one must totally ignore the four dichotomies and the type descriptions in order to get away with such an incredibly insane switch as that from INTj to ENFj. It is, in fact, a perfect example of the pathetic behaviour of a deluded idiot who thinks that he is competent in Socionics and understands the types. He isn't, and he doesn't.

[DirectorAbbie]

I don't think it's difficult. Brilliand had no idea what my type was, but I typed myself as soon as he explained socionics to me. When I learned about enneagrams and subtypes, I easily typed myself for those as well. If you know who you are, it's easy to know what you are.

[jason_m]

I don't think it's difficult. Brilliand had no idea what my type was, but I typed myself as soon as he explained socionics to me. When I learned about enneagrams and subtypes, I easily typed myself for those as well. If you know who you are, it's easy to know what you are.

I don't agree with that. These personality systems are really just ideals/models that resemble reality in some way. Reality usually isn't classified easily, especially something as complex as personality. However, in general, the better the personality system, the easier it is to identify your type.

Jason

[ZTCrawcrustle]

I don't agree with that. These personality systems are really just ideals/models that resemble reality in some way. Reality usually isn't classified easily, especially something as complex as personality. However, in general, the better the personality system, the easier it is to identify your type.

Jason

The descriptions may be idealistic, but that is mostly because their authors try to cram as much information about the type as possible into them. With that, there are very few individuals who match the descriptions word-for-word. However, what is important is clearing all the hubris and getting down to the essense of a type. Then, there are certain distinctions that can be made between specific types. Obviously socionics does not dictate all of personality, but a fair deal of your personality is subject to it.

Also, it is hard to type yourself because a lot of people take a bird's eye view approach (which leads to several possible typings, but they pick only the one it best resembles) or the image they have of themselves does not correspond to how they actually use their functions. Additionally, irrationals do not have a stable feel for their functions, extraverts are not as likely to focus on their inner state, and people with strong Ne vacillate constantly.

Finally, "the better the personality system, the easier it is to identify your type"??? Since you claim that personality is complex and not rigid (as would make it easy for classifying), would this not suggest that a system by which it is easier to type yourself has a higher chance of being flawed?

[jason_m]

Finally, "the better the personality system, the easier it is to identify your type"??? Since you claim that personality is complex and not rigid (as would make it easy for classifying), would this not suggest that a system by which it is easier to type yourself has a higher chance of being flawed?

Why would it necessarily suggest that? Your argument is:

P1: Personality is complex.
P2: Therefore, personality is not easy to classify.
C: Therefore, a system that makes personality easy to classify is likely flawed.

I don't see the connection between the second premise and the conclusion. You're going to have to give more explanation.

This is what I was trying to say:

P1: Personality is complex.
P2: Therefore, most personality systems are ideals and only roughly approximate personality.
P3: Some personality systems approximate personality better than others.
P4: These personality systems will be more accurate.
C: Therefore, because they are more accurate, the personality systems that approximate personality better will make your personality type easier to identify.

Jason

[Ezra]

People have trouble finding their type because either they don't understand themselves very well (or they have poor self-perception), or they they don't understand socionics well enough to type themselves properly. Note that their misunderstanding of socionics may not be entirely their fault; there's so much shit spread by those who also don't understand it that it's easy to get caught up in it and start believing (and, worse, preaching yourself) said shit.

[Phaedrus]

Note that their misunderstanding of socionics may not be entirely their fault; there's so much shit spread by those who also don't understand it that it's easy to get caught up in it and start believing (and, worse, preaching yourself) said shit.

To which you yourself have contributed a lot. The worst forms of shit people are spreading is the delusion that you can dismiss the four dichotomies and your own test results and believe that you can be one type in MBTT and another in Socionics.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Phaedrus]

To a point the dichotomies can be used Phaedrus, because all the NTs have strong Ni and Ne, strong Ti and Te, and so on, but when you come down to distinguishing which NT type it is, the P-J thing is crap, and not something anyone should use, totally shallow superficial traits that are very easy to confuse.

Now you are spreading complete bullshit again. The P-J thing is essential and necessary because it defines each type's temperament. Every LII has an IJ temperament and must thus identify with and test as J, every ILI has an IP temperament and must thus identify with and test as P, and so on.

You can never ever have any other temperament than the temperament you are supposed to have according to the four dichotomies, which in themselves DEFINE every single one of the 16 types. If you don't undertand and accept this this, you don't understand Socionics, and you don't understand the types.

Likewise for E-I. Instead, learning about the elements is very useful and your relation to each. An NT doesn't have just any SF as his/her dual, it's not the dichotomies that are actually important there but the functions and elements.

The functions and the four dichotomies never ever contradict each other. They are ALWAYS in perfect agreement. If they don't match each other, you have made a mistake and must start all over, because then you KNOW that you have mistyped the person.

An ESFp is far more similar to an ISFj than to an ISFp, even though it shares more dichotomies with the ISFp.

Only in some attitudes, not in behaviour and not in temperament and not in biological life rhythm. And that is what the four dichotomies are about. They are about your natural inborn temperament, which you can never change.

The two gamma SFs are more similar because of the shared focus on Se and Fi, and the shared appreciation for Ni and Te etc.

They are not more similar in behaviour and life rhythm. In that respect they are opposites.

An ILI conflicts with an ESE, but has a dual in SEE, and there is only one dichotomy different. They would do much better with an ESI than with an ESE, even though ESI has fewer dichotomies in common with the ILI's dual. The reason is the focus on certain elements over others, not in having the most right letters lined up.

Here you reveal that you confuse things completely and don't know what you are talking about. Intertype relations is one thing, temperaments and dichotomies is another. You don't know the basics of Socionics. You should study it much more than you already have. You are just wrong, and you don't even realize it.

[kensi]

The functions and the four dichotomies never ever contradict each other. .

There are 6 dichotomies.

[kensi]

They are not more similar in behaviour and life rhythm. In that respect they are opposites.
.

Mirrors are not opposites...if anything, extinguisment points to an opposing nature.....today in class my ESFj friend was talking to me when the ISFj instructor was talking at the same time.....and there was a lot of tension there (related to extinguishment)...if it was an ISFp instructor, i dont think it woulda mattered.

[Slacker]

Fuck you. As if you have any idea of who the real person is behind an online persona. In my experience you've shown me that you don't.

Do you think he meant that personally against you? He himself had a very hard time typing himself for a pretty long time. So it seems like he'd be including himself when he says that. The two greatest reasons people would mistype themselves would seem to be either they misread themselves or they misread the theory. That's all he said and I think it makes sense.

[Slacker]

This is the condescending shit that he feeds me, Slacker Mom. Anyway, never mind. Carry on.

Yes that is condescending. Carry on. LOL.

[discojoe]

I've noticed a couple things:

- 1) A large number of people on this website are unsure of their type.

- 2) A large number of people have changed their type over time.

I thought that this might have to do with the fact that, unlike the MBTI, socionics has no official way of determining one's type. However, neither does the Enneagram, and yet, from my experience, I haven't noticed the same degree of confusion amongst its users.

My question is, why is it so difficult? Is it the fact that there are inconsistent interpretations of the types? Is it that the descriptions are not down-to-earth enough? Or is it something else?

Answering these questions is useful, because it can improve how the descriptions are written. It would be especially useful if the people who fit one of the categories mentioned above would respond, so we have people who are actually experiencing this problem tell us why they are having (or have had) trouble.

I will say that I had trouble, because a lot of the INTj descriptions described things that are difficult for me to see in myself. I think I do use Ti a lot in my thinking, but not in the way it's usually described.

Jason

Because hearing about something and getting to know it are two separate things.

[Jarno]

My question is, why is it so difficult?

Because there is a trend on this forum to rely on information elements as a criteria to find your type.

I see this tendency much less on russian sites.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

No, definitely not. They are much too different for that.

No. They are same deep down in the creative/romantic sense, ENFjs always provide me with music that I really enjoy. You're speaking as a person that's never found true love. You're like this blunt naggy grandpa that's flicking his boogers on me. Go away and find some inner happiness before you think you can be a teacher to others.

But with totally different working styles, totally different life attitudes in many things that relate to themselves and how they cope with life.

So what. It explains how you can still really enjoy somebody even if they have a vastly different lifestyle than yours. And besides, that lifestyle isn't so different than you think. Many IEIs write about shit that EIEs have lived out.

Since when do my relationships with people here have anything to do with anything? You admit that I am right and yet you continue to act like an idiot.

They have to do with *everything.* Life is all about relationships. Work on yours or die a bitter old man. I at least hope there is somebody out there that appreciates/cares for you. Like Expat you also don't understand that sometimes it's not about how right you are. A calculator is always right. But it doesn't mean I want to stick one up my ass.

Do you close your eyes every time you are going to read a text to get a better feeling for it, and then keep them closed during the whole reading?

lol Actually, I probably could put a little more effort into things. But in turn, you need to chill the fuck out and stop screaming. Nobody cares.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Jarno]

i think the same though i wonder if they are more successful in your opinion (if you're meaning russian forums). i don't speak russian and cannot convince myself .

I would think that they are more successful but I don't have any evidence to back it up.

[consentingadult]

Because there is a trend on this forum to rely on information elements as a criteria to find your type.

I see this tendency much less on russian sites.

You speak russian?? Wow!

[Jarno]

You speak russian?? Wow!

никак но он сумейте как перевести с babelfish :-)