Your typing of forum members (archived '11-'14)

[The Ineffable]

Except they don't.

Well they may and often do. Just wait for her say 20th video and see about it again.

Many Extroverts can be socially introverted (Socionics) and it often comes down to motivation or self-restraint. I myself am very "introverted" and not myself when I meet new people, for instance. In the end social extrovertsion is based on the motivation to act, when it's not there - ie. nothing to say, defensive mode, people you have nothing in common with or you don't like - you can't be "extroverted" still you can be Extroverted as a type. Generally I observed that some people are "extroverted" by default, just it's their habit, it's a nurtured attitude: the preachers, the "implied" people, the managers, the entertainers. There are many "extroverted" IEIs, aren't they? On the forum I'd mention crazed, thePirate (and NewBorn STAR just not sure what you considered to be his real type). So without such role or motivation, you can't act or speak, just like that, out of the void...

[Suz]

WorkaholicsAnon - hmmm lol
So,WA, if you don't mind i'll comment on this, just a couple of things, really...Hehe thought that interaction between you and Lobo on here was kinda interesting, if you guys don't mind me saying that I actually felt kinda bad for Lobo when i read it, what with you implying he looked 'stupid' not making a case and such. Sometimes it is tiring to have to explain every little thing one mentions, esp. if Laghlagh is asking for lists and WA is asking for type arguments - poor Lobo cought in the crossfire there, lol.

Here's what i think: Imo, Lobo is right that you ask a lot of questions, you want people to show how they arrived at their conclusions. IMO you like Fi, but you aren't a Fi type, WA. IMO you are most likely a Fi-seeking type.

Well, I was just thinking how i know a lot of ISTp girls irl, and how a lot of them are actually Si-subtype, which means they are a little more assured in their social interactions, but they do that in some sort of formulaic way. I mean, they are girls and it's expected of them, so they try to do the right thing.

Also, sth about Se - i do think when one is high in Si is also high in Se (to some extend). So, what you said to Lobo there, WA, seemed a bit Se-ish to me. So, maybe Maritsa was right abotu some Se there, but not Se-type.

The other thing, my experience with all ISTps in my life, from friends to family and others, is that they really question you/one a lot, they almost question you to the bone ( and sometimes through it even, but it' ok as they probably don't realize that )

So, WA, i'm going to suggest ISTp to you. Based on my experiences with ISTp females i know, and some theory bits here and there. I'm thinking people might misstype ISTp females to Fe-base or sth along those lines. Anyway, my 2 cents here.

cheers

That is really very interesting, felafel, because I often return to consider the possibility of me being ISTp. There are a few things that make me reconsider though, like (among other things) my physical clumsiness, my difficulty with being efficient, and my appreciation for people who help me with those things. But I dont know, you could be right-- ISTp is still on the table for me.

Why, though, dont you think I'm an Fi-type? You dont think i'm good at Fi? I'm just curious, cause people around me think i'm great at it and tend to turn to me for advice on Fi matters...And i have to say, i'm usually on the right track that way.

[FDG]

Except they don't.

Well they may and often do. Just wait for her say 20th video and see about it again.

Many Extroverts can be socially introverted (Socionics) and it often comes down to motivation or self-restraint. I myself am very "introverted" and not myself when I meet new people, for instance. In the end social extrovertsion is based on the motivation to act, when it's not there - ie. nothing to say, defensive mode, people you have nothing in common with or you don't like - you can't be "extroverted" still you can be Extroverted as a type. Generally I observed that some people are "extroverted" by default, just it's their habit, it's a nurtured attitude: the preachers, the "implied" people, the managers, the entertainers. There are many "extroverted" IEIs, aren't they? On the forum I'd mention crazed, thePirate (and NewBorn STAR just not sure what you considered to be his real type). So without such role or motivation, you can't act or speak, just like that, out of the void...

Being shut in / silent in social situations doesn't mean you will LOOK introverted. It's about energy levels, tendency towards checking out the environment, willingness to be approached / approach (introverts respond better to being approached, and their "look" often seems to implicity tell "hey, approach me").

[Beautiful sky]

Spasm, I've added you to my list as EII.

[Suz]

Looks like some of you need to read the part about "IEEs and determining their type" (re: Fe) as well as "Hard but liberating things for an IEE to say" (re: Se), in the following link.

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=IEE_domain

BTW, this entire article describes me excellently.

[Gilly]

Extroverts can look introverted on vid.

Except they don't.

Are you aware of the fact that a good 60% of your arguments and retorts regarding socionics rely solely on you simply asserting the correctness of your views without offering any justification or explanation whatsoever?

[Absurd]

Are you aware of the fact that a good 60% of your arguments and retorts regarding socionics rely solely on you simply asserting the correctness of your views without offering any justification or explanation whatsoever?

.

Yes, I'm sorry to disappoint you Gilly.

[Sumer1an]

Except they don't.

Are you aware of the fact that a good 60% of your arguments and retorts regarding socionics rely solely on you simply asserting the correctness of your views without offering any justification or explanation whatsoever?

I feel like thats how 70% of the people here argue.

[Absurd]

I feel like thats how 70% of the people here argue.

Where is your list queer ?

[Gilly]

Are you aware of the fact that a good 60% of your arguments and retorts regarding socionics rely solely on you simply asserting the correctness of your views without offering any justification or explanation whatsoever?

I feel like thats how 70% of the people here argue.

And they are all equally assholes. I used to try offering my rationale, but nobody gives a fuck because there are so many people who just blurt out their opinions and nobody ever fucking gives heed to the actual shit I say to back up my opinions so I just fucking gave up.

[Trevor]

Sumer1an: LII > ILI.

[Absurd]

You too? I can tell by the way you found my letters interesting

Your letters are interesting - telling. Where are you know ?

WA: My post was actually a suggestion. I could be wrong. I don't know how you are 'physically clumsy"? You mean you bump into stuff and people? And you're 'inefficient" by whose standards? Did i say 'you aren't good at Fi", by chance? I don't think i did.

I only do that when I'm drunk. I bump into cars and pavement, so I can't be SLI.

xyz...

[NewBorn STAR]

I feel like thats how 70% of the people here argue.

And they are all equally assholes. I used to try offering my rationale, but nobody gives a fuck because there are so many people who just blurt out their opinions and nobody ever fucking gives heed to the actual shit I say to back up my opinions so I just fucking gave up.

You are entp-ti.

Try asking me why

[Suz]

This is really interesting, anyway are you Dutch by any chance ?

You too? I can tell by the way you found my letters interesting

WA: My post was actually a suggestion. I could be wrong. I don't know how you are 'physically clumsy"? You mean you bump into stuff and people? And you're 'inefficient" by whose standards? Did i say 'you aren't good at Fi", by chance? I don't think i did.

At any rate, like i said, it's a suggestion. As for 'looks like some of you need to read" xyz...*shrug*

I know it was a suggestion, Felafel, a good one. In fact when i was a newb and doubting my IEI self-typing, and going through other introverted type descriptions it was in the SLI description that I truly recognized myself. Not totally, but it was pretty striking. Throughout my socionic study over the past 2 years, I've come to realize that duals can be mistyped for each other, especially by oneself, because values and aspirations can be similar, and one's dual is what one wishes one could be.

Plus the creative and HA functions are so cherished and important to oneself and one can sometimes be a little oblivious to weaknesses in one's own HA, that it can be mistaken for creative. Which is why I asked what it was about me that made you sense that i'm not Fi-ego, but instead Fi-seeking. I know you never said outright I'm not good at Fi, but essentially saying i'm Fi-seeking as opposed to Fi-ego is another way of saying Fi is not a strong function, but a weak one in me. I'm not criticizing; I genuinely want to know, because i do want to be clear on the distinction between a creative Fi ability and a HA Fi ability, if my current conception is inaccurate.

oh and my comment re: the article was not directed at your comments per se, but what you mentioned a select few others saying about me (which i've heard from them before as well). An IEE is strong in Fe (heck it's the demonstrative function!!). An IEE can come across Se-like at times (and I think i might be a dominant subtype anyway), though my questioning of Lobo was more Te-motivated than anything else--I wanted to know what it was about me that made him so sure of the EIE typing for me, which he was unwilling to share, and even worse, he gave me an explanation initially that wasn't even the REAL reason, just to try to get me off his back (and frankly that was pretty offensive to me). One reason I wanted to hear his explanation was because i wanted to judge whether his reasons were due to an inaccurate perception of me, an inaccurate understanding/application of socionics, or some hole of knowledge that I have. Turned out it was largely the first reason (an inaccurate perception of me and my motivations--which was my suspicion anyway since Lobo and I have barely interacted), at which point it stopped mattering to me, what type he thinks I am. Anyway, my point in saying all this, is that my whole intense questioning of Lobo was Te-motivated (in my mind), not Se-motivated. I dont see how that goes against Te-HA though, but hey, like I said, HAs and creative functions can get mixed up.

BTW, i know what you mean re: SLI questioning. I have witnessed it myself. I am not quite that good. Only when i really really want to know something, and even then i'm not always sure what to ask.

[Absurd]

Haha.

[Suz]

Those are some good-looking letters, yeah?


@WA: I do not know, and don't really know you. May be.. or not. cheers PS: you're still cool, so type's not too important

Aww, well I know you think i'm cool if you're typing me your dual

Believe me, I take an SLI typing as a HUGE compliment!!

[Sumer1an]

I feel like thats how 70% of the people here argue.

Where is your list queer ?

I feel like you're fucking autistic. Probably makes you untypable.

I feel like thats how 70% of the people here argue.

And they are all equally assholes. I used to try offering my rationale, but nobody gives a fuck because there are so many people who just blurt out their opinions and nobody ever fucking gives heed to the actual shit I say to back up my opinions so I just fucking gave up.

haha I know what you mean.

Sumer1an: LII > ILI.

yeah.. I tried LII at one time. It just doesnt fit. Plus I know quite a few LIIs, who I know for a fact are LII, and I get along with them but only on a superficial level and for short periods. We always have too many disagreements and cant talk on any sort of intellectual level. I could see how I value Ti but if I am Ti valuing, I'm IEI. The only thing standing in the way of me typing myself IEI (other than my interrelations) is that my IEI friend complains I dont show enough emotion.

[rat1]

That's what people tell me. They tell me I'm unemotional. I think it's actually the world that's completely deadbeat, and I'm not trying to hide it.

[DividedsGhost]

I feel like thats how 70% of the people here argue.

And they are all equally assholes. I used to try offering my rationale, but nobody gives a fuck because there are so many people who just blurt out their opinions and nobody ever fucking gives heed to the actual shit I say to back up my opinions so I just fucking gave up.

I listen to you. You're one of the few people I actually feel is worth listening to.

[Gilly]

And they are all equally assholes. I used to try offering my rationale, but nobody gives a fuck because there are so many people who just blurt out their opinions and nobody ever fucking gives heed to the actual shit I say to back up my opinions so I just fucking gave up.

I listen to you. You're one of the few people I actually feel is worth listening to.

Thank you, I appreciate that. Sometimes I feel like I must be crazy because I think I explain myself pretty well when I try, and yet most of the time the responses I get vary from "Yeah whatever" to "lol ur dumb."

[Absurd]

I feel like you're fucking autistic. Probably makes you untypable.

Hehe, what makes you think I wanted you, specifically, to type me ? I know my type. I just asked where is your list queer ?

Oh ye, what else do you feel ?

[Beautiful sky]

Director Kam, I type you ISFp and have added you to my list.

[Beautiful sky]

So, I'm going to put "CONFIRM" next to the types of the members that I'm not shy about stating their real type and to put it out there that it's as good as 100% solid and the others I'm not sure about I'm going to leave it without the big "CONFIRM" next to it.

Ok, some of the time, I am just repeating their self typing of themselves mostly out of laziness of actually having to type them.

[Beautiful sky]

Minde, I type you xNFx; ENFp, ENFj, INFp, or INFj are all on the table. I confirm the NF part.

[DirectorAbbie]

I think self-typings are very accurate. So are Ashton's typings.

[Beautiful sky]

I think self-typings are very accurate. So are Ashton's typings.

Well, DA, there are several ways of looking at this in ().

1. People may not have a good understanding of the functions.
2. People may not see the big picture and pick and choose functions they like or their culture and society deems as more "valuable" or "important" or "admired"
3. They may be convinced by a friend that they are a type that they are not.
4. On and on....

[anndelise]

I think self-typings are very accurate. So are Ashton's typings.

Well, DA, there are several ways of looking at this in ().

1. People may not have a good understanding of the functions.
2. People may not see the big picture and pick and choose functions they like or their culture and society deems as more "valuable" or "important" or "admired"
3. They may be convinced by a friend that they are a type that they are not.
4. On and on....

The same would apply to the other-typer as well.
At least the self-typer is more in the know of what goes on in their heads, and why they do what they do. The other-typer has far less access to that. And when you're typing how someone processes information...you're trying to type what goes on in their heads. The self-typer has home court advantage.

[Beautiful sky]

Well, DA, there are several ways of looking at this in ().

1. People may not have a good understanding of the functions.
2. People may not see the big picture and pick and choose functions they like or their culture and society deems as more "valuable" or "important" or "admired"
3. They may be convinced by a friend that they are a type that they are not.
4. On and on....

The same would apply to the other-typer as well.
At least the self-typer is more in the know of what goes on in their heads, and why they do what they do. The other-typer has far less access to that. And when you're typing how someone processes information...you're trying to type what goes on in their heads. The self-typer has home court advantage.

No, not really because information is available to me as I'm typing them when they express certain thoughts in their writing. From many perspectives, including dichotomies, Jungian's functions, analysis of what they say and how they say it. It's a process and one which I enjoy greatly, obviously (and because it's a rational and logical thing to do...to do them step by step and in order).

As wiki says about my type:

" The individual likes to apply his insight to specific situations, relating them to the bigger picture. He also enjoys discussing idealized circumstances or what could be rather than what is. Consequently, he usually has high standards, even unreasonably so, for those around him.
He does not pursue ideas or new opportunities merely for their own sake, but for their application to specific questions and issues that he feels are important."

[anndelise]

The same would apply to the other-typer as well.
At least the self-typer is more in the know of what goes on in their heads, and why they do what they do. The other-typer has far less access to that. And when you're typing how someone processes information...you're trying to type what goes on in their heads. The self-typer has home court advantage.

No, not really because information is available to me as I'm typing them when they express certain thoughts in their writing. From many perspectives, including dichotomies, Jungian's functions, analysis of what they say and how they say it. It's a process and one which I enjoy greatly, obviously (and because it's a rational and logical thing to do...to do them step by step and in order).

As wiki says about my type:

" The individual likes to apply his insight to specific situations, relating them to the bigger picture. He also enjoys discussing idealized circumstances or what could be rather than what is. Consequently, he usually has high standards, even unreasonably so, for those around him.
He does not pursue ideas or new opportunities merely for their own sake, but for their application to specific questions and issues that he feels are important."

Are you suggesting that you are completely free from all bias? Wait, but the rest of your post admits to a bias.

I guess this might be how your supposed use of Ne differs from mine.
I tend to open my mind to alternatives. I'm open to knowing that my insights could be unrelated to reality. I prefer to try to see the world as the other person sees it, and maybe wonder at how their self-typed type could be approaching something the way that they are. Rather than attempt to impose my views onto them. But then, I also don't tend to approach people with the intent to judge them (type them). Preferring instead to actually got to know them and/or learn something from them.

Basically, my view is that if you're approaching someone with a standard or theory in mind...you are already pre-biasing yourself in regards to that person. This belief of mine is, itself, one of my biases, lol.

[Beautiful sky]

No, not really because information is available to me as I'm typing them when they express certain thoughts in their writing. From many perspectives, including dichotomies, Jungian's functions, analysis of what they say and how they say it. It's a process and one which I enjoy greatly, obviously (and because it's a rational and logical thing to do...to do them step by step and in order).

As wiki says about my type:

" The individual likes to apply his insight to specific situations, relating them to the bigger picture. He also enjoys discussing idealized circumstances or what could be rather than what is. Consequently, he usually has high standards, even unreasonably so, for those around him.
He does not pursue ideas or new opportunities merely for their own sake, but for their application to specific questions and issues that he feels are important."

Are you suggesting that you are completely free from all bias? Wait, but the rest of your post admits to a bias.

I guess this might be how your supposed use of Ne differs from mine.
I tend to open my mind to alternatives. I'm open to knowing that my insights could be unrelated to reality. I prefer to try to see the world as the other person sees it, and maybe wonder at how their self-typed type could be approaching something the way that they are. Rather than attempt to impose my views onto them. But then, I also don't tend to approach people with the intent to judge them (type them). Preferring instead to actually got to know them and/or learn something from them.

Basically, my view is that if you're approaching someone with a standard or theory in mind...you are already pre-biasing yourself in regards to that person. This belief of mine is, itself, one of my biases, lol.

No way. I have my feeling and subjective biases and interpretations. That doesn't mean that I am not rational; just emotional and rational. Yes, you are much more open than I am and less likely to try to make things fit first.

[Beautiful sky]

Basically, my view is that if you're approaching someone with a standard or theory in mind...you are already pre-biasing yourself in regards to that person. This belief of mine is, itself, one of my biases, lol.

I'm going to confirm your type as IEE.

You do Ne first, which is wait and watch (perceive things picking up on ideas) and I judge them then I perceive them.

And you declare your observations like I do.

[NewBorn STAR]

Basically, my view is that if you're approaching someone with a standard or theory in mind...you are already pre-biasing yourself in regards to that person. This belief of mine is, itself, one of my biases, lol.

I'm going to confirm your type as IEE.

You do Ne first, which is wait and watch (perceive things picking up on ideas) and I judge them then I perceive them.

Honey, type me.

Ask me questions too if you have to

[Beautiful sky]

I'm going to confirm your type as IEE.

You do Ne first, which is wait and watch (perceive things picking up on ideas) and I judge them then I perceive them.

Honey, type me.

Ask me questions too if you have to

May I please have a VI photo? One face forward and another mug shot taken from the side.

[Beautiful sky]

NewBorn STAR, I type you, confirm that and have added you to my list as INTj...the very rarest kind of type in the entire socion as per genetic and morphological development; it's wonderful to have you here.

[Beautiful sky]

MisternNi -ILE and confirmed
InkStrider -LSE and confirmed

[NewBorn STAR]

NewBorn STAR, I type you, confirm that and have added you to my list as INTj...the very rarest kind of type in the entire socion as per genetic and morphological development; it's wonderful to have you here.

COOL

[Absurd]

NewBorn STAR, I type you, confirm that and have added you to my list as INTj...the very rarest kind of type in the entire socion as per genetic and morphological development; it's wonderful to have you here.

Ehh, I have always thought he is ESI, morphologically advanced ESI, almost cybernetic.

[Anglas]

NewBorn STAR, I type you, confirm that and have added you to my list as INTj...the very rarest kind of type in the entire socion as per genetic and morphological development; it's wonderful to have you here.

Ehh, I have always thought he is ESI, morphologically advanced ESI, almost cybernetic.

Well, Maritsa can be wrong.

[Absurd]

Ehh, I have always thought he is ESI, morphologically advanced ESI, almost cybernetic.

Well, Maritsa can be wrong.

She definitely wasn't wrong typing me 8 types just to settle on one, it's like finding oneself lost in thought, in an unfamiliar territory. All I'm saying is, to err is human.

[NewBorn STAR]

EsI havent considered about that !

But how about dual typing. INTJ- ISFJ. I think its perfect. Thank you absurd.

You both Absurd and Maritsa your socionics insight never fails to inspire me. You are gifted individuals