Finally a WA self-type thread

[Suz]

Where is ESE coming from? D:
I agree with that quote from aixelsyd.

Compare WA to those Reuben mentioned, adding in other obvious IEEs like pianosinger and Kim. Now compare her to yellow82 and MD. Clearly fits in with the former.

# 1 doesn't seem true about WA, but it's so black and white that it's not type related and if it is, only on a small, small scale.
# 2 Not Ni valuing was already determined, and keep in mind IEEs are Ni ignoring.
# 3 As far as appearing enthusiastic...take a look at piano's avatar. It's like, the caricature of an IEE, outside on a bike with a hilarious Ne + Fe expression. While this thread isn't about piano, I'm saying that IEEs can appear this way as well.
# 4 not true of WA
# 5 truth seeking as Ti dual seeking? Who isn't truth seeking? How is it even type related? If anything, it would be Fi, I suppose.
# 6 restating # 3, which was just her Fe demonstrative. Another good comparison is woofwoofl, for the Fe demonstrative. He does the same exact thing that you are calling "Fe base" behavior but not only Fe bases act like that. It's especially difficult too see the difference because we're simply on the forum, not interacting IRL - I think I recall reading about EXFps appearing Fe base when expressing themselves via internet.. Don't remember where though

excellent post. exactly what i've been trying to say as well. And yeah thanks for mentioning pianosinger's photo. I actually have photos with a similar expression on my face (but more subdued since i'm not about to fall off a bike). oh and yes woof and i had noticed in the past that our manners of expression are pretty similar in the chatbox. I actually think woof is even MORE hyper, positive, and enthusiastic than me!

[Suz]

# 5 truth seeking as Ti dual seeking? Who isn't truth seeking? How is it even type related? If anything, it would be Fi, I suppose.

oh to comment on this, I agree with you that truth seeking is NTR. The way people go about truth seeking though might be type-related. But truth seeking is basically a human mission in life. I disagree that it's a specifically Fi thing (though you weren't really suggesting it really...). Fi has it's own truth it's seeking, Te has its own truth, Ti has its own truth, Ni has its own truth, etc etc for all 8 IEs. Not to say different versions of the truth exist, but the way I see it, each IE examines a different facet of information so each IE is going to be concerned with a different aspect of information and be working on "seeking the truth" for itself.

[Suz]

That would make you a perceptive type.

meaning what?

[Beautiful sky]

How do you get people to do things you want them to do?

[Wavebury]

edit.

[Jenna]

Ah yeah to clarify I wasn't trying to say that truth seeking WAS Fi, just that if it were anything that's what it would be. That's why I put the I suppose after, lol, to show that I was just speculating.
But yeah, ntr. Maybe unhealthy people don't, but I think in general healthy ones do.

Edited to add: I think maritsa meant perceiving, as in irrational? Idk

[Wavebury]

I know this probably pointless to debate, so youll excuse me here, but how is saying that "if it were anything thats what it would be" be any different from saying "that is what it is"? How is speculation any different from making a decision about it? Seems like a half assed way of saying thats what you think it is, without saying thats what you think it is. In other words a cop out.

[Suz]

How do you get people to do things you want them to do?

idk i usually mostly just ask...

if it's really a pressing issue i'll be more insistent and proactive if just asking doesn't work.

oh and Maritsa you didn't answer my question above. We're still guessing what you may have meant by it.

[Reuben]

You're pretty slow for an Ne-Base.

[Simon Ssmall]

I see this as pointless thread. I don't see you open to the idea of any other type and the times that your type was questioned you would go bananza, so people here are mainly wasting time or will be called stupid (even if not directly).

"Looks like you still have a lot of growing up to do Reubs." - even comments like these that are mild are still not something I would ever write in a thread where I ask for other people input. Whatever your type is, you are way overly sensitive about this.

[Slacker]

I've talked to her a lot in chat and she just seems very much more Ne+Fi to me than Fe+Si. She seems more about reading people and figuring out their motivations, which is something I associate more with IEE than ESE, and she has trouble putting things into action, which I know is a problem I often have and I think is common for IEEs, but I think is less common for ESEs - they to me seem pretty good about getting things going when they want to. I've talked to her so much, probably to her more than to anyone else on this forum, it seems like I'd be able to tell at this point if we were on the same wavelength or not. Of course, not everyone necessarily thinks I'm IEE either.

[Suz]

I see this as pointless thread. I don't see you open to the idea of any other type and the times that your type was questioned you would go bananza, so people here are mainly wasting time or will be called stupid (even if not directly).

"Looks like you still have a lot of growing up to do Reubs." - even comments like these that are mild are still not something I would ever write in a thread where I ask for other people input. Whatever your type is, you are way overly sensitive about this.

I dont go "bananza". I was debunking stupid NTR arguments or misinterpretations of me. I had a feeling that such weak reasons were behind people typing me ESE or Fe-base and I wanted to see if there was some really good reason I should be considering. So far I dont see anything convincing. Reubs' reasons dont hold water at all. Do you have a more substantial basis for typing me ESE, Ssmall? (besides me writing something you "wouldn't ever write").

And no, i am not very open to another type because i've been studying socionics pretty intensely for the past 2 years now and identify strongly with delta and IEE and not at all with alpha, much less ESE. I have had some success applying socionics to my daily life with this typing, which also goes to show that I'm probably not too far off about my type (and believe me I questioned my type constantly for the first 6-7 months or so). Like mentioned previously in this thread, the only other type i would potentially identify with is EII, but Ep and extraversion seem pretty clear to me.

Despite that i did want to give people the floor to air out their thoughts about why they think ESE for me, other than just continually stating "YOU'RE ESE WA" in chat, or listing me as ESE in type threads. I did not open this thread because i am soul-searching for my type. I thought i made that clear in my OP, so it's not like that's a secret here.

Also, it would have been one thing to say what you are saying, if I was the only one negating the ESE/EIE typing. However, see thread. I am far from the only one who sees ESE as a ridiculous typing for me, with strong substantiation. Add to that the people who are sort of on the fence, and i think it's pretty obvious to most people that I'm IEE, especially to people who are close to me here on the forum (unlike you--we've barely talked). So, I am not exactly like you Ssmall. We are not all carbon copies of each other. Live with it.

[Suz]

You're pretty slow for an Ne-Base.

As far as I know, IQ is NTR.

[Simon Ssmall]

Also, it would have been one thing to say what you are saying, if I was the only one negative the ESE/EIE typing. However, see thread. I am far from the only one who sees ESE as a ridiculous typing for me. Add to that the people who are sort of on the fence, and i think it's pretty obvious I'm IEE. So, I am not exactly like you Ssmall. We are not all carbon copies of each other. Live with it.

I am living with it and I have no problem with it. If you would know me more you would know how little importance I put into types/dualities etc. as I am more interested in personalities, not their thought processing habits. My comments are not about your type but about how you react to them in general. And it is not because you write or do not write exactly like me (I for one am still open to the idea I can be another type or the fact that the same type can behave quite differently) but because you really do not make people welcome to contribute to a thread like that with remarks I mentioned, neither it is about this specific thread, it is about the past threads and how you reacted to them also.

[Reuben]

Wawa do you feel bad after posting the above?

[ashlesha]

if you do want to hear people's thoughts its in your best interest to not try to belittle people who share them.

what do you mean by people misinterpreting you? do you think its intentional?

[Suz]

Wawa do you feel bad after posting the above?

Do i feel bad after posting what?

[Suz]

if you do want to hear people's thoughts its in your best interest to not try to belittle people who share them.

what do you mean by people misinterpreting you? do you think its intentional?

What i mean in this case is not "me" as a person but my behaviors/actions. e.g. Reuben's assertions are a good example. He is sort of saying "this action" = "this IE in such and such a position" in various iterations.

This is not how socionics works. To type someone in socionics, you have to recognize that actions/behaviors can be a result of multiple different IEs and combinations of IEs. the MOTIVATION behind it is what's important.

Reuben (and some others) do at times assign a motivation to me, but as per above, the motivations he assumed were not correct (as Jenna rightly pointed out). Niffweed also made similar misjudgements about me (and why i told him what i told him) in his basis for typing me ESE from his single "incognito" attempt at trying to talk to me in tinychat.

[Reuben]

We could be identicals.

An IEE should know who I'm referring to in the above statement.

Wawa, if your immediate question is 'who is he referring to', you're ESE. Don't ask why. Believe. Oh wait you can't, that's your PoLR. So sorry.

[Suz]

We could be identicals.

An IEE should know who I'm referring to in the above statement.

Wawa, if your immediate question is 'who is he referring to', you're ESE. Don't ask why. Believe. Oh wait you can't, that's your PoLR. So sorry.

lol, typing is not about these catch-22's... If it were that simple, making a socionics test would be easy. Your Ti way of thinking about this is really starting to irritate me.

And no i dont feel bad.

[meals]

WA, you seem pretty IEE to me. As hard as I find it to explain my reasoning about typing, I'll say in the OP for example, you seem to be taking everyone's feelings into account by creating a thread like this and treating the subject delicately.

[somavision]

You contradict yourself.

1-0 to the stupid police.

actually I think this might have been an own goal!!!

[Reuben]

And no i dont feel bad.

IEE don't say anything to piss people off. When they do, they feel bad.

Go read wikisocion description before you say I'm making up my own rules.

I'm not saying there are no exceptions, but this may be a dubious point you'd like to consider before settling on IEE.

[Suz]

by the way, this is how i see the IEs:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ight=fog+Expat

[Suz]

IEE don't say anything to piss people off. When they do, they feel bad.

Go read wikisocion description before you say I'm making up my own rules.

I'm not saying there are no exceptions, but this may be a dubious point you'd like to consider before settling on IEE.

First of all your blanket assertion that "IEEs dont say anything to piss people off" is fallacious. That said, I didn't think i was pissing anyone off, there was nothing offensive about what I said. yeah maybe a little ironic, but I dont have to agree with people if i think what they are saying is wrong. And yes I will point it out; I didn't do so in an egregious way that I have to feel bad about.

Oh and btw, i've read the wikisocion descriptions. I've read all the descriptions out there. Multiple times.

[somavision]

I strongly suspect you are the same type as me. I'm not certain, but, well... strongly suspicious.

[Aiss]

I've talked to her a lot in chat and she just seems very much more Ne+Fi to me than Fe+Si. She seems more about reading people and figuring out their motivations, which is something I associate more with IEE than ESE, and she has trouble putting things into action, which I know is a problem I often have and I think is common for IEEs, but I think is less common for ESEs - they to me seem pretty good about getting things going when they want to. I've talked to her so much, probably to her more than to anyone else on this forum, it seems like I'd be able to tell at this point if we were on the same wavelength or not. Of course, not everyone necessarily thinks I'm IEE either.

yeah i wonder how many people who type WA ESE chatted with her extensively. doesn't seem to be the case for most of them.

[golden]

How attached to your Enneagram self-typing are you? What about the possibility that you are E2 and that those qualities lead some people to confuse you with an ESE?

[Suz]

I strongly suspect you are the same type as me. I'm not certain, but, well... strongly suspicious.

teehee... ditto.

[Suz]

yeah i wonder how many people who type WA ESE chatted with her extensively. doesn't seem to be the case for most of them.

I concur. Other than Reubs maybe who is like totally confused and out there.

[Suz]

How attached to your Enneagram self-typing are you? What about the possibility that you are E2 and that those qualities lead some people to confuse you with an ESE?

hmmmm. I haven't spent as much time studying enneagram, but when i do read the enneagram descriptions, I do identify most strongly with E6. However, i will go back and read the E2 one and see...

[golden]

hmmmm. I haven't spent as much time studying enneagram, but when i do read the enneagram descriptions, I do identify most strongly with E6. However, i will go back and read the E2 one and see...

I'm noticing a very small trend that E2s don't easily recognize their E-type. I think maybe the E2 descriptions just are not all that flattering (not that any of the types are described in fully glowing terms). The descriptions for 2 sometimes point out that 2 does not like to face its own dark side readily; I guess that one way of not facing it could be identifying with some other type's dark side. Since I still type myself as 4, I apparently disintegrate to 2, and I think it is hard for me to see how that unhealthy 2ness could be me, even though it must be.

From http://www.enneagraminstitute.com:

Misidentifying Twos and Sixes


This is a fairly common mistype because these two types share a number of key traits. Both are warm and engaging and want to be liked–-although, more precisely, Sixes want to have the approval and support of others, whereas Twos want to be loved and to be important to others. Both ingratiate themselves with people, although Sixes do so by being playful and silly, by bantering and teasing those they want to elicit an emotional (protective) response from. Average Twos also ingratiate themselves, but more from an implied position of superiority–-they are warm and friendly, although the implication is that they are offering their love and friendship, their approval and advice, rather than that they are seeking it from the other, at least at first.

In short, the feeling-tone of both types is completely different: Sixes warily invite selected others into their lives, whereas Twos throw out the net of their feelings with more abandon and see whom they can sweep into the fold. Sixes want to create partnerships with others that will support them in their bid to be more independent, but start to feel anxious if the relationship becomes too merged or "mushy." Twos want to be close with others, and the more intimacy and merging they have with their loved ones, the better.

Both types are emotional, corresponding to the Jungian feeling types–the Two is the extroverted feeling type (PT, 62-63), and the Six, the introverted feeling type (PT, 222-223). Twos "wear their hearts on their sleeves" and are openly warm and demonstrative about how they feel toward others. Sixes, by contrast, are often ambivalent about their feelings, frequently sending ambiguous, mixed signals to other people. As they deteriorate, average to unhealthy Twos become increasingly covert in their dealings with people, ultimately becoming manipulative while concealing their true motives even from themselves. By contrast, average to unhealthy Sixes become wildly reactive (overreacting) and consciously confused about their feelings, ultimately becoming paranoid.

Indeed, Sixes are consciously assailed by anxiety, indecision, and doubts–-and they look to trusted others (especially some kind of authority-figure) to reassure them and help them build their confidence and independence. Twos are also sometimes anxious, of course, as all human beings are; however, they are not as indecisive or assailed with doubts, nor do Twos consult an authority figure for answers. On the contrary, as they grow in self-importance, average Twos usually make themselves into authority figures, dispensing advice on all life issues to the people within their spheres of influence. In short, average to unhealthy Twos believe they will only get love by having others depend on them, whereas average to unhealthy Sixes increasingly fear becoming dependent on others, while actually becoming more dependent. At the end of the Continuum, the differences can be seen most starkly between the unhealthy Two's psychosomatic suffering and romantic obsession and the unhealthy Six's paranoia and volatile lashing out. Contrast Twos such as Merv Griffin and Sammy Davis, Jr., with Sixes such as Johnny Carson and Mel Gibson.

- - - - -

I don't know if I agree with all of the foregoing--for example, I think that some 2s do look to "authority figures," but they seem pretty selective about whom they consider authoritative, and I have noticed in at least one case an insistence that the authority consulted was not being treated as an authority and that the ideas proffered were coming from the E2's own experience, with the external figure providing only an example of what she had seen for herself. (Though plenty of types can do that.) I'm also not sure I think all the people I believe to be 6 are "playful" and "silly."

I know one 6 (I typed the person; they self-typed as 6 in the past) who is very able to articulate the fear motivation that lies at the root of many life choices, needs, interaction patterns. I don't know you well, WA, but I have not often seen you as someone coming from a place of fear, even if it were something you were not fully conscious of.

Could you see yourself as belonging to the heart/feeling triad, rather than the head, and as being more motivated by the need to build self-image than by the need to alleviate or react to fear?

[Jenna]

Eh, Ssmall, maybe you should also look at how they are talking to her - Reuben has said "too easy to fool" and "too slow" as supposed indicators of her not being Ne base. He was assuming things about WA and being rude about it to top it off. You can see that prior to this, she was acting very cordial and open minded (and IMO still is) with that one exception, but her response is reasonable.


@Typhon - no, that isn't what I was saying. I was saying "it's not type related, but if it were ... Etc" I said IF it were - emphasis on if because you are misreading it. I really don't see why this is such a difficult concept for you - I was contemplating and considering options.... How is THAT making a decision and saying "IT IS WHAT IT IS" Really, I have no idea how you come to that conclusion. You can claim that I'm just coming up with a half assed way of stating something I supposedly think of as a fact, in reality you probably just hate the fact that I agreed with dyslexia, again. God forbid. :eyeroll:

[Wavebury]

@Typhon - no, that isn't what I was saying. I was saying "it's not type related, but if it were ... Etc" I said IF it were - emphasis on if because you are misreading it. I really don't see why this is such a difficult concept for you - I was contemplating and considering options.... How is THAT making a decision and saying "IT IS WHAT IT IS" Really, I have no idea how you come to that conclusion. You can claim that I'm just coming up with a half assed way of stating something I supposedly think of as a fact, in reality you probably just hate the fact that I agreed with dyslexia, again. God forbid. :eyeroll:

kk I get it hun.

[Slacker]

We could be identicals.

An IEE should know who I'm referring to in the above statement.

Wawa, if your immediate question is 'who is he referring to', you're ESE. Don't ask why. Believe. Oh wait you can't, that's your PoLR. So sorry.

1. I have no idea who you're talking about, so I guess I'm not IEE either?

2. This is complete bullshit. And look, I said something mean, so I guess I'm not IEE for that reason either.

This is a ridiculous thread.

[Slacker]

IEE don't say anything to piss people off. When they do, they feel bad.

Go read wikisocion description before you say I'm making up my own rules.

I'm not saying there are no exceptions, but this may be a dubious point you'd like to consider before settling on IEE.

where do you get this stuff from? really? IEEs never say anything to piss people off?

[Suz]

Hmmmmm, i actually do identify more with the 2 than the 6 in that article, snorekill! I'll have to study up a bit more.

[Suz]

How attached to your Enneagram self-typing are you? What about the possibility that you are E2 and that those qualities lead some people to confuse you with an ESE?

wow i just read this... yeah it fits really well! I guess i am a 2. Deciding on a wing is hard though, i identify with parts of both 1 and 3.

http://www.enneagram.net/type2.html

[Jenna]

I think you are 2w1

[Wavebury]

I think you are 2w1

+1

You always came off to me as a 2, WA.