Results 1 to 40 of 148

Thread: Summoning help for determining my sociotype

Threaded View

  1. #28
    Creepy-ssss

    Default

    Wow ESTJ, I never imagined you would present such case. I have to disagree for multiple reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by InvisibleJim View Post
    I have for a long time believed MensSuperMateriam to be an LII-Ne type. He has a natural logical inquisitiveness and need for categorisation.
    Guilty.

    The reason for this is that the he lacks what someone often described as the 'loosey goosey' appreciation of the ILI socionics type.
    I'm not sure of understanding that expression (maybe a popular proverb?). Nonnative speaker here.

    However, he does have a very good skill for relating his ideas in the extroverted mode and seeking explicit solutions with his environment rather than observing his internal logical compass. This would possibly suggest that he could be an ILE type.

    Considering that the need for categorisation comes from Si-Ne in the Ego-Super-id and the need for dynamic understanding comes from an Se-Ni preference in the Ego-Super-id I have decided that it may be the case that a wildcard suggestion is ESTJ, Te-Si.
    I'll answer to this in probabilistic terms. It's not possible to determine even a single sociotype with complete accuracy. We have different interpretations for these phenomenons (cognitive processes, functions), different results for every of them (external behavior and internal thoughts), depending on the individual, etc. And the big question, how much of this stuff is real and in fact represents what happens in brains.

    So no type could be completely discarded, neither no type could be completely attributed for any individual. We will always have contradictions that could be "solved" by alternative methods... All we can have is make a sort of "calculus" which consider every aspect with its associated relative weight. The result will point towards the direction of one type over the rest.

    The are much variability in the question of extroversion, more if we consider those "introverted extratims" and "extroverted intratims". But "swapping" external attitudes is very unlikely if the average type is too polarized in this scale. ILEs (as happens with LIEs) are barely polarized. We have some of them quite socials and some of them who are happy with a more individualistic and isolated life. And it's common to observe both "moments" in the same individuals. But LSEs are usually much more "extroverted". They could be calm, quiet, but I've never seen any of them really introvertizing.

    I am by all effects very introverted, regardless I'm intratim or not. And as something natural, something that "I need" (nature), not a result of shyness or similar (nurture). As this an observable phenomenon (experimental proof, if you want) it cannot be negated. E5+LSE???? I would say "impossible".

    The fact that I try to refer all knowledge/ideas to the "ultimate judge" which is external reality does not make me an extratim. Extratims will not only use the world as a source of knowledge, they will interact with it much more than the average introverted. Not my case, definitely (introverted). It could be considered (at most) a proof that I'm not a weak Te user, therefore Te ego or id. Which of them? I would have said Te id until Labcoat presented his argument: I have two tools which I recognize as important, useful and necessary. But what happens when instead of working together we have a direct confrontation? What happens when I have to "take side"? Te wins as the ultimate source of truth. The discussion with Ineffable is a good example.

    It cannot be denied that I'm "Ti perfectionist" but it would fit in the fact that I'm 5w6 instead the more common 5w4 for ILIs. All fives search for truth, but 5w4s introspect more whereas 5w6s need a reliable source of truth, which implies a "reliable, more depured method". As LIIs tend to be 5w6, this makes me more similar to them. Maybe something like Normalizing ILI, if we consider DCNH subtypes.

    Well nothing said about strong Te is an argument against LSE. But if we add to the fact that I'm strongly introverted (E5) my core values and life goals, which are more "observable, experimental proofs" then the LSE option clearly vanishes. Hardly delta user, hardly a pragmatist (ST club). The OP expresses my particular case. I'm by no way speaking about something like intelligence, NTR. But hardly any ST will spend life "thinking so much and doing very little in the tangible world" as I do, because this does not correspond with their self-image and life goals. These things emerges from the core of nature, and IMO it's clear that my core does not fit in the ST club. Nither I share the "conservatism/inmovilism/what you want to call it/" of deltas. Innovation is my surname .

    I think the most likely option should belong to the NT club, because of these "life goals" stuff and because inside a club, the types are strong and weak in the same functions.

    Now theoretical argumentation. Mainstream Socionics:

    You have considered SiNe as need of categorization and NiSe as need of dynamic understanding. It seems to be not correct. True that they're complementary and valued/devalued simultaneously. But despite of inside there pairs some aspects are shared, other aspects are shared by NiSi and NeSe. The need of a categorization should be a static aspect, NeSe are static whereas SiNi are dynamic. If you still consider me as a static user, then you have to discard LSE. Te and Si are both dynamic according to Socionics. Static/dynamic is a property of every whole block, not functions isolated.

    LSE=Ni PoLR. Definitely not my case. No way. Fe PoLR is the most likely situation.

    LSE=Te leading. Again, I focus in the world as "the last word for what is true". But altough I'm consicious about effcience and I know how to improve, I do not pay too much attention in it as LIEs and LSEs do, everyone in its particular style. It is important, but secondary for me. I'll try to change what it's not working properly for achieving my concrete/general goal, but it's always subordinated to the relevance, trascendence, of the goal itself.

    LSE=Te leading=Ti ignoring. Strong but the least confortable function inside the ID because it represent the opposite attitude of leading. Considering my focus in Ti, demostrative is much more likely for Ti as an id function.

    Since I've refined my understanding of Se, I would say that I'm weak in it but probably valuer. Not delta then, but I'll leave this question still in the air.

    Heretic Socionics:

    LSEs are aristocratic, I'm democratic by all effects.
    I consider myself constructivist, whereas LSEs are emotivists.

    An honourable and worthy type for any individual if ever there was one. That is all!
    Of course.

    Of course this is all based upon my frames of reference, as I say, the problem with typology.
    As happens to everyone.
    Last edited by ssss; 08-24-2011 at 05:13 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •