Member Questionnaire (Nunki)

[The Reality Denialist]

Some people (Gulenko etc) think that trying to appear to have some sort of expression is more indicative of being a logical type (while ethics makes a transformation as a whole). You said something along those lines in this thread. Obviously it might indicate something else.
I might consider ILI. If I interpret your text: it is melancholic (duh) and lacks impact (lower Fe but some ILIs can be very melancholic bunch).

[Nunki]

I'm not feeling well--I had to give up my cat today. She was the sweetest, most loving companion I have ever had, and if it hadn't been for her, I might have committed suicide during the most difficult years of my life. The last thing she experienced on this earth was me petting her little head as she drifted away forever. I don't know where a cat goes when they leave this world, but I hope it's a place of peace. . .

Given my current state, I'll keep this reply short. I don't think I'm an ILI, because one of my best friends is an ESFj. And, if it matters, another of my best friends is an ESFp, so I don't think I'm an LII either.

Also, another vote for EIE. Thank you. It has been noted, with the reservation that I don't appear by any normal standards to be an extrovert.

[Adam Strange]

I'd say that you VI as an LII.

[InterPrizeWes]

I think you look a lot like Silver (Rival) from Pokemon.

[Nunki]

I'd say that you VI as an LII.

Thank you for stopping by to opine on my type. : )

I would be surprised if I'm an LII. I'm pretty irrational, for one thing. My beliefs are all inspired by my intuition rather than logic. The only way I use logic is to express my beliefs in a form that will make sense to other people. Also, I view logic as a form of rhetoric, often exaggerated in its importance by intellectual bullies, rather than the ultimate arbiter of truth. That covers Ti. There is also the whole Infantile thing. Infantile individuals like to be provided with Si stimulation and cared for as if by a parent. That's the complete opposite of me. I like to be viewed as independent (in spite of the fact that I often fail at that), and Si, such as talk about food and comfort, is generally off-putting to me. Last of all comes Ne-valuing. Ne valuers enjoy expanding the possibilities, brainstorming, and engaging in what-if thinking. I, on the other hand, like to reduce the possibilities as much as possible, find brainstorming unpleasant, and am annoyed when Youtube recommends me a video about a what-if scenario that has nothing to do with reality or anything that would be useful to me.

[Nunki]

I think you look a lot like Silver (Rival) from Pokemon.

I had to do a Google search on Silver, because, in spite of the fact that I've played every mainline Pokemon game, it gets hard to remember which rival is named what, when all of them are named after colors. Anyway, I guess that's cool. Silver is the most interesting and compelling of the rivals they've introduced so far.

[Nunki]

I was, as chance would have it, reading through a number of type profiles--LII, IEI, EIE, EII, and ILI--written by none other than Stratiyevskaya. Thank God I didn't relate more than the tiniest bit to the description of LII. For some reason unknown to me--perhaps because it is hyper logical and emotionally crippled, neither quality being at all appealing--I would be unable to tolerate exemplifying that personality. And, somewhat to my surprise, I also didn't see much of myself in either profile written for the Beta NFs, in spite of the fact that I admire both types. The clear winners, based purely on what Stratiyevskaya says of them, were EII and ILI. Neither is a perfect match, though. Against ILI, Fe PoLR and having ESFj as my Conflictor make little sense--I generally respond favorably to Fe, and one of my best friends is an ESFj. And, against EII, I strongly doubt that I'm Ne-Si valuing--I have limited, or even negative, interest in either type of information. So basically, I don't relate that well to any of the types whose profiles I skimmed through, even though they are seemingly the types I most closely resemble. This suggests to me that I don't have a clear Socionics type.

[nifl]

a picture you posted gave me associations with ILI, IEI
you could try a video

[Nunki]

a picture you posted gave me associations with ILI, IEI
you could try a video

Thank you for your input.

A video is entirely out of the question. I only have one video camera, and it produces a picture of such low resolution that it makes me look ugly and awkward. I can only flourish in front of a camera that picks up every strand of hair and speck of dust.

[Metaphor]

So, despite of what others said about your type by this questionnaire (LSE/ILI), I didn't see any sign of Te-value, but I didn't see Te PoLR either.
IEI is a reasonable option, but EIE probably makes more sense (the conflict of opposites), and I didn't see the consistency of Ti-base for LII.

[Nunki]

Which type I most identify with seems to depend on who is describing the types. I read all of the little profiles in the first post of the "Pick your subtype" thread, and the best description of my personality was EIE-Ni, with IEI-Ni coming in at second place. So I'll quite happily wear the EIE label, even though there are certain aspects of my personality that clash with that label.

[Metaphor]

Not every archetype suits anyone else's personality at this point and I won't suggest you to label yourself as a type.
At this point, type is rather to be the artificial model of self than being synonymously associated to personality.

[SacredKnowing]

The Truth is that you're probably INTp. Psychic/Ghost is an INTp archetype. Psychic/Dark is Walter White's archetype.

[Sol]

Which type I most identify with seems to depend on who is describing the types.

Important are traits of types. Types descriptions are secondary, where for understanding human's type are better short descriptions with minimum of theory, water and authors' views.
There is core Jung's theory of types traits. The closer theory to it - the higher trust it deserves.
And there is similar part in texts of different Socionics authors - which you should trust more and to use.

In English I recommend for theory to read Jung's book, Filatova's book. In theory to use only: 4 dichotomies, 8 E/I variants of functions, strenght and value of functions, IR.

You seem to have the problem with theory usage. It's for more chance of your F.

If you'll place a video in 1st message then there be normal data to understand your type.

[Nunki]

The Truth is that you're probably INTp. Psychic/Ghost is an INTp archetype. Psychic/Dark is Walter White's archetype.

To me, Psychic/Ghost just seems like pure Ni. I think it's pretty obvious that I value Ni rather than Ne--this is one of the few things I'm certain of when it comes to my Socionics type. I also think my Ni is strong. So it makes sense that I would assign myself Psychic/Ghost even if I'm not an ILI.

@Sol
I am not going to post a video because I don't appear graceful when recording myself.

[SacredKnowing]

To me, Psychic/Ghost just seems like pure Ni. I think it's pretty obvious that I value Ni rather than Ne--this is one of the few things I'm certain of when it comes to my Socionics type. I also think my Ni is strong. So it makes sense that I would assign myself Psychic/Ghost even if I'm not an ILI.

One more word: you VI as a childhood friend who I'm very certain is INTp as well. He underwent heavy surgery to try to become a woman

[Nunki]

One more word: you VI as a childhood friend who I'm very certain is INTp as well. She transitioned.

In the unlikely case that you were wondering, I just want to say I am not that childhood friend. I have been a male all of my life, for one thing.

Also, I just want to say that I don't place any faith whatsoever in visual identification. The only physical structure that corresponds at all well to an individual's personality is their brain. And even that isn't a particularly good reference point for VI, since correspondences between brain structure and personality are mainly discovered through self-reporting, which is highly unreliable.

[SacredKnowing]

In the unlikely case that you were wondering, I just want to say I am not that childhood friend. I have been a male all of my life, for one thing.

I'm sorry for offending you.

Also, I just want to say that I don't place any faith whatsoever in visual identification. The only physical structure that corresponds at all well to an individual's personality is their brain. And even that isn't a particularly good reference point for VI, since correspondences between brain structure and personality are mainly discovered through self-reporting, which is highly unreliable.

The soul is the form of the body (St. Thomas Aquinas), therefore there ought to exist some kind of connection between the form of the body and the type of soul it is. This is more so for the face, because certain facial expressions (which are a system of emotions) form grooves resulting in a grimace.

[Nunki]

I'm sorry for offending you.

No worries. I wasn't offended. I was just making sure that you didn't think I was someone else.

The soul is the form of the body (St. Thomas Aquinas), therefore there ought to exist some kind of connection between the form of the body and the type of soul it is. This is more so for the face, because certain facial expressions (which are a system of emotions) form grooves resulting in a grimace.

Most facial expressions can be interpreted in multiple ways. For example, people smile when happy, but smiling can also be a sign of nervousness or even anger. Also, people's faces have varying levels of susceptibility to marks and wrinkles created by facial expressions. For example, unlike most people, my forehead doesn't wrinkle when I raise my eyebrows, so that type of expression and the feeling it reflects would leave no mark on my face.

[Sol]

> I don't appear graceful when recording myself.

The only important is to be there appropriate for typing, - be close to your natural behavior. It's not hard.

In case you'll record, - place the link to 1st theme's message.

[Nunki]

I'm probably not a T unless a person's Socionics type can change. As a child, and up through my mid teens, I was highly emotional and expressive. It's only as an adult that I've cooled down and become more interested in stereotypically T subject matter (e.g. philosophy and physics).

EDIT: Here's an Enneagram test result that I got a few days ago:


EDIT AGAIN: This post was written in response to a message by Sol that has since been altered.

EDIT THREE: Another test result: