Guess the ENFP and ESFJ description

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Crispy]

Are those not traits of the typical Socionic LII? We are known for our regimented lifestyles.

[Aleksei]

Ergo, I have the feeling that you don't understand Fi-PoLR. It's nothing more and nothing less than Ti-Creative, the rest is sensationalism.

This is quite possible, yeah. I was guiding myself by the Wikisocion definition of Fi as a vulnerable -- which didn't seem to fit me as well as Se as a vulnerable.

- Ti Base sees everything sensible and fitting in a system (like an LII we know would say - "neat"). They prefer to keep the system intact and overlook "small details", usually delaying their clarification for a later time. They are confident and relaxed in Logic, can use Fi, which is their Role function.
- Ti Creative dictates that every piece has to be sensible, regardless whether it fits the system (preferable) or not. They don't overlook details and holes, sticking to them how they come. On the other hand they're not continuously interested in everything to be "correct", just in what interferes with their momentary interests.

So, ILE is a dick about small details but LII prefers to say "fuck it, close enough" basically? I think I do fit LII better than.

Hmm... which of the two is more likely (or highly unlikely) to be an Enneagram 3? I'm certainly a 3w2 -- I love to dazzle and impress, and nothing gives me more pleasure than being complimented on a job well done; although I spent a lot of time on my 9 stress point due to my lack of discipline.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Crispy]

I wrote about this previously: I know an LII who has a such big problem with anything that concerns authority and domination, that he quit his job to defy his managers. Plus, although he was unemployed and short on cash, he was so despised by the perspective to create a pompous CV to impress the HR skanks that he was refusing that continuously. He's the best example I know, although I know others, not so extreme but still.
This is obviously considered Perceiving, in MBTI such behavior can't be Judging and they have no notion of Se-PoLR & such.

How is he acting like an (MBTI) Irrational? MBTI J/P dichotomy is based on "Making Decisions" vs "Keeping Options Open" (MBTI myers briggs type indicator), and it seems like he made a firm decision at the expense of his options.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Crispy]

Did he change careers or something completely random, or did he just get a new job later?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Crispy]

Lol don't worry. There's nothing I could find type wise but I'm glad he has a strong sense of dignity.

[Aleksei]

But dunno, from the little I know about you, you come across as a combination of SLE and ILE to me, just vibes .

That's interesting -- I came up SLE on a refined Socionics test I took (the only one worth shit I've ever seen IMHO), and then changed one question I had doubts about and came up ILE.

An SLE-ILE combination... that would be LIE, no? I've been actually seriously considering LIE as a type.

[Gilly]

Based on my overall impression of you thus far, I would say that ILE-Ti makes sense for you. You don't strike me as an SLE.

[Aleksei]

Based on my overall impression of you thus far, I would say that ILE-Ti makes sense for you. You don't strike me as an SLE.

Makes sense, but aren't ILEs profoundly unmotivated though?

[Gilly]

Not necessarily. Some of them are extremely energetic. E3 is a lot more common for ILE than LII, as well.

[Aleksei]

I'm not exactly hyperactive, but I am rather sanguine.

Yeah I think I'll go with ILE-Ti for now.

[Crispy]

In terms of DCNH ILE-Ti would be either D-ILE or N-ILE; C-ILE would be considered ILE-Ne.
Check these provisionals to see which hypothetical DCNH ILE you are closest to:
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p..._ENTp_-_Seeker

[Aleksei]

In terms of DCNH ILE-Ti would be either D-ILE or N-ILE; C-ILE would be considered ILE-Ne.
Check these provisionals to see which hypothetical DCNH ILE you are closest to:
Provisional DCNH descriptions - Alpha quadra - Wikisocion

I don't think I could identify with a non-sociable subtype, frankly. However, from the descriptions there H-ILE fits best.

However, venturing away from ILE...

(Valentine Meged & Anatoly Ovcharov) The intuitive subtype is affable, kind and pleasant in dialogue. They possess a developed sense of humor that frequently makes them the soul of the company. Very mobile, restless and scattered; always hurrying to make use of time. Inspired, vigorous and optimistic. Enterprising: safely takes risks and applies new ideas. They have difficulty focusing their attention on one thing for a long time. Diplomatic and gallant with everything, especially the opposite sex, but can show familiarity towards closer acquaintances. Due to their propensity towards impudence they often change steps within their plans and when they make ethical mistakes are quick to correct them by means of jokes and various services. Behaves simply and naturally. In conversation they like concern the interlocutor, to embrace/kiss and joke. Gestures and gait, when deprived of their underlined solidity, appear quite natural.

This fits perfectly.

[Crispy]

Well LIE sure fits Enne-3w2 better than ILE does I would think. Remember being either C-LIE or D-LIE makes you a "clearly expressed extrovert" meaning most (75%+) people who meet you should be able to tell you are more extroverted than introverted.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Aleksei]

Why am I necessarily a Ti type?

[Creepy-cinq]

You blew it because you used DCNH. DCNH is not Socionics, in strict terms you're a Ti type, so you can't be LIE.

The socionics police!! Sound the alarm! Red font too! You're in trouble Aleksei..

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Crispy]

Aleksei, which of these descriptions do you relate to the most? (Ignore the physiognomy portions)
ENTp
INTj
or ENTj

If you relate to the ENTj the most, and you relate strongly to the provisional subtype description, you are probably that subtype as well. But if you relate to INTj or ENTp, then it won't work out.

[Aleksei]

Hmm for more than one reason. First of all you appear to be a Fe-valuer. You said that you like compliments for doing a job, in a way that sounds Fe-valuing. It appears to me that what you do you feel as special, instead of the obvious thing to to be done. Like a great, unique design, which is typical for Ti types.

Then you have an analytical approach to things, for example in this discussion with Jarno, separating things which are not the same, instead of relying on results. The big difference between Ti and Te is that Te systematizes things by how they work and their results, instead of their structural differences. Naturally, Ti types emphasizes the nature of things instead of relying on outcome.

So basically in Socionics its not so easy to state "oh I behave more like that little description so I'm not an Ti type but a Te one". One more piece of evidence that DCNH is incompatible with the classical Socionics.

Alright, so i'm a Ti-type then. Cool.

[Jarno]

I'm back from holiday and I see that aleksei has changed his selftyping?

I thought he was an expert...

[Crispy]

So far he's been LII, LIE, and now ILE. Since then he has been sloppily typing characters (With different socionics/MBTI types I might add) to clearly show how much he still needs to learn.

[Jarno]

So far he's been LII, LIE, and now ILE. Since then he has been sloppily typing characters (With different socionics/MBTI types I might add) to clearly show how much he still needs to learn.

ah thanks for the update. This explains a lot.

[Aleksei]

So far he's been LII, LIE, and now ILE. Since then he has been sloppily typing characters (With different socionics/MBTI types I might add) to clearly show how much he still needs to learn.

You're an idiot. That much I know already. Guess there isn't so much I need to learn then...

See, the problem is (confirmed by my last foray into an IM discussion) precisely that the functions have been fleshed out. They're the same at their base, but Socionics functions have enough info on top of their MBTI counterparts to provoke ambiguities. Se for example, has some elements that have traditionally been ascribed to Te, as exemplified by Labcoat's post:

Se has nothing to do with sense perception. This is one of the biggest and most tenacious misconceptions in all of socionics. Se is more like a way of understanding reality that is based on heavy preconceptions. Prototype thinking is a good word for it. Upon encountering any object or situation an Se type tries to the greatest possible extent to fill in ALL of the properties of an object based on having seen only a small number of them. Everything gets linked to a stereotype and pigeonholed on that basis. This is how terms like "nerd" and "jock" come into existence.

This has nothing to do with how Se is defined in MBTI (and is in fact anathema to the values of most MBTI SPs). Ergo, one cannot interpret that as Se in MBTI unless one uses Socionics functions to type in MBTI -- which would be thoroughly pointless, as then MBTI is just Socionics by another name. Ergo, most Se types in Socionics are not Se types in MBTI. QED.

So in other words, call MBTI primitive or whatever, I don't care. But don't insist that MBTI types necessarily have to align with Socionics types, because it just makes you look dumb.

[Crispy]

This has nothing to do with how Se is defined in MBTI

That's because every single one of the functions defined in MBTI are wrong. It is only the general type descriptions in MBTI that are useful. The general type description of ESTP matches almost flawlessly with the socionic description of SLE.

as then MBTI is just Socionics by another name.

Now you're catching on! Good for you!

[Aleksei]

That's because every single one of the functions defined in MBTI are wrong.

See... I don't care. Far as I'm concerned they're all wrong, given that they're all the result of an acidhead INFP's inane, confused and thoroughly unscientific ramblings. The point is that their functions are right for their system and Socionic functions are right for that system. As for the descriptions, they actually fall short of describing the actual behavior of many people of the given types, and with good reason because Jungian typology is based on cognition, not behavior.

Now you're catching on! Good for you!

I'm going to ignore this because it's the height of idiocy. There's, erm, no point to the existence of two different typology systems that are the exact same.

And I'd like to see you try to tell my ESTP SLI friend she's not ESTP.

[Crispy]

Far as I'm concerned they're all wrong, given that they're all the result of an acidhead INFP's inane, confused and thoroughly unscientific ramblings.

1. Jung is not INFP.
2. LSD is not nearly as bad as what authority figures have brain washed you into thinking it is.
3. If this is your view of MBTI/Socionics, I can't imagine a single reason you would continue coming here. Are you trying to learn about something that you believe is not true?

There's, erm, no point to the existence of two different typology systems that are the exact same.

There is if one had functional descriptions that are BROKEN for 8 of the 16 types. Augusta realized this, patched it up, and presented the evolution of MBTI: Socionics. They describe the same types.

And I'd like to see you try to tell my ESTP SLI friend she's not ESTP.

Taking into account your socionics fluency, I'd sooner tell you she was SLE.

[Aleksei]

1. Jung is not INFP.

He is, officially, by MBTI standards. :wink:

2. LSD is not nearly as bad as what authority figures have brain washed you into thinking it is.

Of course it isn't, but it does make one have weird visions, which an Fi type could then think of making into some stupid convoluted system like this.

3. If this is your view of MBTI/Socionics, I can't imagine a single reason you would continue coming here. Are you trying to learn about something that you believe is not true?

Well, they're fun theories to explore, and do work quite well as a rough analytical tools. There isn't an Si or Te part of the brain though.

There is if one had functional descriptions that are BROKEN for 8 of the 16 types. Augusta realized this, patched it up, and presented the evolution of MBTI: Socionics. They describe the same types.

One- That, then, means the vast majority of people typed SP in MBTI are mistyped, given that the kind of drive and forcefulness associated with Se is notoriously absent in that temperament.
Two- There's nothing to break. MBTI is a psychometric tool. Socionics is a different psychometric tool, one perhaps more refined than MBTI, but still nothing more than a description of a collection of traits that might or might not fit one person.

Taking into account your socionics fluency, I'd sooner tell you she was SLE.

Dude...

SLEs easily spot power dynamics within any given structure, hierarchy or relationship, and strive for a secure position where they are less subordinate to others. At the same time, SLEs are comfortable with hierarchies, and recognize that they are a necessary part of everyday life. SLEs may sometimes seem dismissive of those of a lower social status, as if they were weak or inferior in some way. Likewise, they see dependence as weakness, and so strive to minimize their dependence on others, especially in their personal relationships.
SLEs' energetic and direct nature tends to make them natural leaders. They are quick to assume this role, even in alien or unfamiliar environments. They usually adopt a direct administrative style and build a bureaucratic structure beneath them over time. They will take full responsibility for their actions, and understand these terms when they take a leadership-based role within a group, company or organization as being part of what leadership is about.

This is not my friend. Nor does it really describe three quarters of all ENTPs I've met. Either this description is wrong (and so is Labcoat's above -- think hard before answering this), or she is not SLE.

[Crispy]

One- That, then, means the vast majority of people typed SP in MBTI are mistyped, given that the kind of drive and forcefulness associated with Se is notoriously absent in that temperament.

Using SP and SJ as "Temperaments" is another monstrosity created in the MBTI system. Drive and forcefulness are strewn throughout ESTP and ESFP descriptions. You won't find them in ISTP or ISFP, which is why you won't find them in a description of SP temperament, as it only describes half of them.

[Aleksei]

Using SP and SJ as "Temperaments" is another monstrosity created in the MBTI system.

It was actually created by Keirsey (fag), and yes, it is a monstrosity. It's a useful shortcut for Se-using types though.

Drive and forcefulness are strewn throughout ESTP and ESFP descriptions.

But not in the way that they are described in the above quote. ESPs hate hierarchy, and usually (but not always) have little desire to lead. ESTPs and ESFPs are usually daredevils. This:

SLEs' energetic and direct nature tends to make them natural leaders. They are quick to assume this role, even in alien or unfamiliar environments. They usually adopt a direct administrative style and build a bureaucratic structure beneath them over time.

is something that ENTJs and ESTJs do. ESTPs usually don't.

[Crispy]

Nor does it really describe three quarters of all SLEs I've met. Either this description is wrong (and so is Labcoat's above -- think hard before answering this), or she is not SLE.

If the SLE description doesn't match all the SLE's you've met, why the hell are you calling them SLE's?

[Aleksei]

If the SLE description doesn't match all the SLE's you've met, why the hell are you calling them SLE's?

I don't. I call them ESTPs dumbass. And they call themselves ESTPs (or the ones that know MBTI do), because they, are, fucking, ESTP.

I tell you, go tell my ESTP friend she's not ESTP (my ESTP friend who's a sociology major and has more knowledge of typology in her pinky than you do in that pin head of yours). Hear her laugh.

[Crispy]

I don't. I call them ESTPs dumbass.

Nor does it really describe three quarters of all SLEs I've met.

Scroll up to what you actually said. Who's dumb?

[Aleksei]

Scroll up to what you actually said. Who's dumb?

Eh, easy mistake to make. I was pissed. Edited.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request