Member Questionnaire (Nunki)

[Nunki]

This is Socionics not MBTI. This is Europe not L.A. Anyway, seeing you're speaking zyztemz already, what is your MBTI curse?

Yes . . . my impression is that mentioning the MBTI around here is a good way to give rise to pitchfork-wielding mobs. But anyway, my MBTI type is INFJ. If I weren't an INFJ, I'd be an INTP.

If you disregard reinin what do you think of the various quadra descriptions?

This is a good question. I'll go through the quadras and point out which function-related traits stand out as being especially good or bad descriptions of me.

Accurate:
- Alpha types tend to enjoy participating in groups where there is free exchange of positive emotional expression in an atmosphere pleasing to the senses.
- Alpha types tend to feel energized in the positive atmosphere of special events, such as public holidays, parties and special celebrations.
- Alpha types prefer to avoid the discussion of controversial and unpleasant subjects regarding personal relationships while in groups, especially if leading to confrontations.

Accurate:
-Inclined to attribute to a new acquaintance traits that they have previously observed in other individuals belonging to the same group as they see the new acquaintance as belonging to.
-Beta types tend to feel energized in the presence of people who share their beliefs and express them with obvious enthusiasm and emotion.
-Beta types tend to give more value to feelings when they are demonstrated with clear emotional expression, and tend to increase the level of their own emotional expression in order to get a reaction from other people.
-[another individual's potential for personal growth in terms of abilities and character] dislike being the subject of such a discussion by others about themselves.

Inaccurate:
-tend to be skeptical of another individual's potential for personal growth in terms of abilities and character

Accurate:
-Gamma types like to talk about where present trends are leading in terms of potentially profitable events and undertakings.
-Gamma types do not see much point in deeply analyzing ideas that they see as having little practical application or connection to reality.
-Gamma types take a longer-term view regarding efficiency and profitability, giving lower priority to the short term.

Inaccurate:
-Gamma types take a hard-line approach regarding ethical principles and the punishment, even revenge, on those who break them.
-Gamma types reject the idea that it's best to avoid confrontations so as not to spoil the mood of those present
-Gamma types have difficulty relating to emotional atmospheres connected to "special dates" such as public holidays.

Accurate:
-Delta types love to share personal experience mixed with their own sentiments regarding their experiences
-Delta types like to talk about new beginnings, opportunities for personal growth, and their plans and prospects for the future.
-Delta types do not fare well in high-pressure situations where they are being forced to do things, are facing threatening opponents, or are submitted to rigorous discipline, but wear out quickly and look for a more peaceful and welcoming environment.

Inaccurate:
-Delta types reject dramatism and emotional affect in favor of wry humor and understatement.

(All of these descriptions are from Wikisocion.)

[Absurd]

Well, this changes some stuff. Although I'm still perplexed how the hell did you manage to write such an intro post and by the decree of your "dry logic", whatever that means, incorporate quite a few Fe sounding lines.

Try this if you have some free time: http://www.socionictest.net/Test.aspx

[mu4]

ILI or IEI. I think you're a introvert, and an dom, not sure which one but ILI is more probable given your dry non-emotional style. Your communication style is personal but a bit obfuscated and as you say I think you try to be mysterious and a bit unclear.

And this would fit your self-diagnosised D-A thinking style.

[Absurd]

Well then, back to my first post.

[chriscorey]

@hkkmr I didn't get ILI for this person at all really. Perhaps you are mistaken? I smell slight Fe.

[mu4]

@hkkmr I didn't get ILI for this person at all really. Perhaps you are mistaken? I smell slight Fe.

I might be. My typing methodology is only by communication style. Different people see different things, and can certainly express different things, but the key things about his communication style is a introverted and personal perspective. He also lacks verbalization of sensory information. I think it's pretty clear he's a intuitive ego and probably intuitive base. Some people see him as others as , imo this is not his most obvious trait which is intuition.

Go back and read what he wrote, it should be very clear he speaks from a introverted perspective.

His irrationality should also be apparent as although he has thought of many things, he remains very undecided and ambivalent about things.

Imo, under no circumstance should anyone confuse this individual for a extrovert, extrovert simply don't talk like him.

[chriscorey]

I might be. My typing methodology is only by communication style. Different people see different things, and can certainly express different things, but the key things about his communication style is a introverted and personal perspective. He also lacks verbalization of sensory information. I think it's pretty clear he's a intuitive ego and probably intuitive base. Some people see him as others as , imo this is not his most obvious trait which is intuition.

Go back and read what he wrote, it should be very clear he speaks from a introverted perspective.

His irrationality should also be apparent as although he has thought of many things, he remains very undecided and ambivalent about things.

I just think IEI more than ILI.

[mu4]

I just think IEI more than ILI.

It's possible yea, but producing function isn't every evident in this individual.

[chriscorey]

It's possible yea, but producing function isn't every evident in this individual.

I'm intuitive. It's scratching on my sternum as I read it. I'll read through it again more thoroughly and get back to you

[Absurd]

Seems upside down - I want to say some type but his testimony negates something I was thinking about as alternative. No history of mental problems, @Nunki?

E-type taken into account and written testimony paint would leave two types.

[chriscorey]

Good point @Absurd People with mental problems make my sternum real​ scratchy.

[Nunki]

Well, this changes some stuff. Although I'm still perplexed how the hell did you manage to write such an intro post and by the decree of your "dry logic", whatever that means, incorporate quite a few Fe sounding lines.

Try this if you have some free time: http://www.socionictest.net/Test.aspx

I'm not the one who's describing myself as a paragon of the dry and unemotional--the credit for that goes to hkkmr. I don't really dispute their assessment, though. I'm fairly bipolar when it comes to emotionality, and spend about as much time being exaggeratedly expressive as I do being as cold and dry as the moon.

I've taken this test before (you won't find one I haven't taken at least once), but I don't remember the exact results I got, except that INFj was the top score. Well, here it is:

ENFP(Huxley) - 150
INFJ(Dostoyevsky) - 135
INFP(Yesenin) - 125

INTJ(Robespierre) - 120
ENFJ(Hamlet) - 115
INTP(Balzac) - 110
ENTJ(Jack London) - 105
ESFP(Napoleon) - 100
ISTP(Gabin) - 100
ENTP(Don Quixote) - 100
ISFP(Dumas) - 95
ISFJ(Dreiser) - 85
ESFJ(Hugo) - 85
ESTP(Zhukov) - 70
ESTJ(Stirlitz) - 55
ISTJ(Maxim Gorky) - 50

Come to think of it, ENFp is probably one of the types that are described as being most like me, although I think there are definitely a few better matches.

Fi-creative probably wouldn't be the most unlikely thing in the world, because I can be a bit manipulative (in a harmless or beneficial way unless I really have it in for someone), and that seems to be one of the ways Fi-creative manifests itself.

ILI or IEI. I think you're a introvert, and an Ni dom, not sure which one but ILI is more probable given your dry non-emotional style. Your communication style is personal but a bit obfuscated and as you say I think you try to be mysterious and a bit unclear.

And this would fit your self-diagnosised D-A thinking style.

I agree that ILI and IEI are both plausible typings for me (my realm of abstraction is certainly more internal than it is about the creative possibilities in my environment), although there are significant points against them both. Earlier in this topic I listed the things I didn't identify with in the ILI profile. Now I'll do the same for the IEI profile:

-They are naturals at approaching an offended person and helping them to let off steam and make amends with the offender.
-They may enjoy good food, but will typically not know when to stop, or, to the other extreme, may not realize when they are hungry.
-They will distrust and dislike bossy people,
-They do not value the importance of awareness concerning methods to achieve their purposes without wasting any energy or producing unwanted side effects
-IEIs can get strong physical sensations of their own internal feelings. These sensations range from minor head pains to stomach aches and take place especially when they fall behind due to external pressures.
-IEIs seek help understanding and perceiving objective measurements and correlations between data within a system. They may doubt their objectivity in such areas of understanding, and desire a partner who is strong and responsive in this function to ensure certainty.

Overall, IEI does sound pretty decently like me; I would rank it as being about as likely as ILI.

On a side note, while I do like being mysterious, I really, really hate being unclear. I try very hard, and often fail miserably, to express myself clearly.

[Nunki]

Good point Absurd People with mental problems make my sternum real​ scratchy.

Then you'd better crack out the itching cream, because I'm about as nutty as it gets. . . . Not really. To answer Absurd, I do have a history of fairly minor mental illnesses (it occurred to me that this is probably part of the reason I'm having trouble settling on a type: socionics is based on the psyches of people who are more psychologically healthy than I am). I was, at one time, misdiagnosed with (or at least, there was disagreement among my therapists) with Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder and Oppositional-defiant disorder, the latter of which bears very little in common with my current self. I also suffer from social anxiety disorder and severe depression. So yes, I have issues, but nothing anywhere near as bad as schizophrenia or manic depression.

EDIT: I just realized that scratchiness is probably not the same thing as itchiness. That might be evidence of a lack of good sensing function in me.

[chriscorey]

Then you'd better crack out the itching cream, because I'm about as nutty as it gets. . . . Not really. To answer Absurd, I do have a history of fairly minor mental illnesses (it occurred to me that this is probably part of the reason I'm having trouble settling on a type: socionics is based on the psyches of people who are more psychologically healthy than I am). I was, at one time, misdiagnosed with (or at least, there was disagreement among my therapists) with Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder and Oppositional-defiant disorder, the latter of which bears very little in common with my current self. I also suffer from social anxiety disorder and severe depression. So yes, I have issues, but nothing anywhere near as bad as schizophrenia or manic depression.

EDIT: I just realized that scratchiness is probably not the same thing as itchiness. That might be evidence of a lack of good sensing function in me.

Lol I didn't say you had mental disorders >_> that was @Absurd.

[Absurd]

Good point Absurd People with mental problems make my sternum real​ scratchy.

Lol I didn't say you had mental disorders >_> that was Absurd.

Stick that eye up your arse and go see a shrink.

I'm not the one who's describing myself as a paragon of the dry and unemotional--the credit for that goes to hkkmr. I don't really dispute their assessment, though. I'm fairly bipolar when it comes to emotionality, and spend about as much time being exaggeratedly expressive as I do being as cold and dry as the moon.

You're somewhat emotional to me - you blame people for reading what you wrote and getting the wrong impression. Anyway, your own words in your first post and second actually negate (again) what you write further - you're like a new and different person in each post the more info you share, for example you went for cog styles and concluded you're D-A. IEI, EII and IEE aren't D-A. Your preference of aristocracy and farsightedness as Reinin dichotomies invalidates ILI you take into account. Not to mention IEE.

Your rejection of "moralism" as you call it is a bit odd for a Fi dom (socionics wise). Not unless I read something else under "moralism" and you mean something entirely else by it. I can be wrong...

Plus it is your second Reinin dichotomy test and this time you're scoring your opposing quadra, that is the quadra you initially thought (?) you are. Werd.

Try temperaments now. Let's see if you're going to pick what I think you're going to pick.

Come to think of it, ENFp is probably one of the types that are described as being most like me, although I think there are definitely a few better matches.

I've seen the "most like me" phrase six times coming from you already and you keep talking about these matches as if none of them actually 'fits.'

Fi-creative probably wouldn't be the most unlikely thing in the world, because I can be a bit manipulative (in a harmless or beneficial way unless I really have it in for someone), and that seems to be one of the ways Fi-creative manifests itself.

Oh, intereresting. Where does it say so?

Overall, IEI does sound pretty decently like me; I would rank it as being about as likely as ILI.

Okay...

[Nunki]

You're somewhat emotional to me - you blame people for reading what you wrote and getting the wrong impression. Anyway, your own words in your first post and second actually negate (again) what you write further - you're like a new and different person in each post the more info you share, for example you went for cog styles and concluded you're D-A. IEI, EII and IEE aren't D-A. Your preference of aristocracy and farsightedness as Reinin dichotomies invalidates ILI you take into account. Not to mention IEE.

Your rejection of "moralism" as you call it is a bit odd for a Fi dom (socionics wise). Not unless I read something else under "moralism" and you mean something entirely else by it. I can be wrong...

Plus it is your second Reinin dichotomy test and this time you're scoring your opposing quadra, that is the quadra you initially thought (?) you are. Werd.

Try temperaments now. Let's see if you're going to pick what I think you're going to pick.

Okay, out of the temperaments, I can immediately rule out EP--none of it sounds like me. EJ is a better match--it sounds like me when I'm on a mission and feeling energetic. That doesn't happen very often, though, so EJ is probably not the best match. That leaves IJ and IP, which are harder for me to decide between. The key point of distinction between them is the static-dynamic dichotomy, and this is a dichotomy that I'm not aware of having clear preferences on. I'm a big fan of stability when it ensures that things will remain pleasant, and stability is my worst enemy when it ensures that things will remain bad. I like to know what to expect of the future, and so unexpected changes are jarring to me; on the other hand, I crave novelty, and when things remain the same, never changing, never promising to change, life feels stagnate. I like to feel that there's some progress to be made, a goal to aim for; without that, life doesn't have any good justification. Even under the most pleasant static circumstances, it isn't how things are that makes life worthwhile; it's what things can be made to be.

I asked someone which of the four elements did they think represented me, and they said "water." They explained that there is something flowing about my actions and that I seem like a stream directed along its course by some unknown guiding purpose. On the other hand, I feel that my posture and body language are remarkably stiff, and was recently compared to a statue. Am I unflappable? I get different opinions about this from different people. I've been called histrionic and I've been called stoic. Am I adaptable? No, I don't think I am; I dislike improvisation; I need to know what to expect so that I have a chance to prepare myself, emotionally, intellectually, and physically. The only thing I'm very adaptable about is honoring other people's suddenly expressed wishes; I find it easy to yield to other people's wants, because I typically have no strong desires of my own. But in general, no, I'm not adaptable; I like everything to be known in advance. I'm a planner (albeit not someone who is necessarily very committed to his plans; I would be upset if a really good plan was ruined, but otherwise, I'm a fairly flexible planner and can easily change things as new circumstances arise.).

What it will come down to is whether I'm static or dynamic. And that appears to be a matter of splitting hairs; I see indications of one and indications of the other, and neither comes out as the clear winner.

My relationship with morals is weird. I'm moralistic, almost, about the importance of not being moralistic; I strongly believe that people should ("should," in the sense that this is what I desire and believe is beneficial for everyone) reject all morality. By morality, I mean action guided by a standard of good and evil.

For what it's worth, that's the only socionics test I've taken that puts me in Delta. IEI, ILI, and EIE are what I usually get from tests. I've also gotten LII, LIE, and Alpha SF, in about that order of frequency.

Oh, intereresting. Where does it say so?

The Fi section of the SEE profile on Wikisocion describes what I'd consider to be manipulative behavior (and not necessarily in a bad way; SEEs sound pretty cool).

[Absurd]

Yeah, SEE is Ej temperament. Sold!

Would be fine if you revised D-A in favour of Holographic now.

Check Gamma and start killing off people in there, foolproof.

[Nunki]

Yeah, SEE is Ej temperament. Sold!

Would be fine if you revised D-A in favour of Holographic now.

Huh? I thought ESFps were Ep temperament. O_o

[Absurd]

Huh? I thought ESFps were Ep temperament. O_o

Same.

Have to admit though. Your thread gave me an idea, like five mins ago. I wanted to clone it and instead of the usual stuff you wrote, change it a bit, for example I thought about changing "I reject morality [...]" into "I reject mortality in favour of dying real soon [...]" and so on and then ask people to type me. Stay tuned.

EDIT: Anyway, you say every one can kill other people and be fine with it, acted on a whim. Cool.

[Beautiful sky]

Nunki, what is your favorite type of art and why?

[Nunki]

Check Gamma and start killing off people in there, foolproof.

I'm definitely not a Gamma SF. Between LIE and ILI, I would probably be more of an ILI, although Fe PoLR is difficult for me to buy; I'm certainly not allergic to expressiveness.

Same.

You said that SEE is Ej, so I thought maybe a typo or a misreading was involved. (I had to double check and make sure I got the acronym right. Socionics acronyms are tricky and probably a nightmare for anyone with dyslexia.)

Have to admit though. Your thread gave me an idea, like five mins ago. I wanted to clone it and instead of the usual stuff you wrote, change it a bit, for example I thought about changing "I reject morality [...]" into "I reject mortality in favour of dying real soon [...]" and so on and then ask people to type me. Stay tuned.

That's a brilliant idea for typing someone, if you know how to infer a person's type from their semantics.

Anyway, you say every one can kill other people and be fine with it, acted on a whim. Cool.

People don't need standards of good and evil to refrain from murdering one another; murder is inherently unpleasant for the person considering it, and automatically arouses a moral consciousness in that person. Also, murder is very frequently advocated rather than forbidden by morality, and even when it is forbidden, to forbid it gives people something to rebel against when rebellion wouldn't even occur to them if they weren't thinking in moralistic terms. They would simply be doing whatever they're comfortable with, and that would exclude murder.

Nunki, what is your favorite type of art and why?

This is a difficult question for me to answer. It's literature, of course, but literature is of very mixed quality, and there are many movies, paintings, and musical compositions that are far better than many books. Part of what appeals to me about literature is that the written word is a medium that can communicate deeper things about the human condition than any other medium in existence. Words peel away appearances: when reading, one doesn't see what is there; what is there vanishes and reveals what is absent (imagination, ideas, thoughts, concepts).

I like what I can do with literature. I can carve my deepest thoughts and richest imaginings onto a page, to be shared with others (and self-expression is a huge motivation of mine; it allows me to experience release, prove myself to others, and be in communion with them), and this can be done with the greatest of ease, because there are no physical obstacles for me to contend with, only emotional obstacles of my own making.

Would be fine if you revised D-A in favour of Holographic now.

I'm certainly no stranger to Holographic thought, so I would be willing to accept that as my main thought process (I really would accept any of them except Causal-Deterministic). If I'm a Holographic thinker, the only plausible typing for me is LII, though. To weigh the likelihood of that typing, I'll go over the points of dissonance I have with LII:

"Just because" is not in an LII's vocabulary.
The LII is usually oblivious to his emotional-psychological state and feels little responsibility for improving it, not to mention the state of others.
The LII has poor control over his physical well-being.
The LII is an efficient worker.
He hardly ever says purposely cryptic or idiosyncratic things.

This sounds like a very plausible typing for me. The LII's function-usage, I'm not so sure about, though. Ne might make better sense as the demonstrative or ignoring function than as the creative function. I'm not sure, because I don't entirely understand what Ne is supposed to be. I'm not a very brainstorm-y person, nor am I particularly curious; on the other hand, I have no trouble generating possibilities (although my preference is usually to narrow them down rather than expand them) or reconciling contradictory viewpoints.

[Absurd]

You said that SEE is Ej, so I thought maybe a typo or a misreading was involved. (I had to double check and make sure I got the acronym right. Socionics acronyms are tricky and probably a nightmare for anyone with dyslexia.)

And ADHD.

I was simply riding the wave of (nearly) "every sociotype fits and that that doesn't fit, fits."

People don't need standards of good and evil to refrain from murdering one another

Of course they don't. You can get murdered and chopped to pieces, and then eaten some after, whilst some of your remaining pieces get delivered to your friends or family with a note attached to it reading "kangaroo meat", the moment you leave your house. So yes, I agree, there are people like that.

murder is inherently unpleasant for the person considering it

Disagree.

and automatically arouses a moral consciousness in that person.

It doesn't arouse any "moral consciousness" for that person has rejected it, so I disagree once more.

Also, murder is very frequently advocated rather than forbidden by morality

Disagree for third time. Post your sources at least.

and even when it is forbidden, to forbid it gives people something to rebel against when rebellion wouldn't even occur to them if they weren't thinking in moralistic terms. They would simply be doing whatever they're comfortable with, and that would exclude murder.

Who are these people? Besides, you make it sound as if you have been forbidden to murder people by your mommy, so you rebelled against it and started killing people. Anyway, the way you put it, goes like this: "Let's give people guns so they can kill themselves, for it is better than not letting that happen and people reaching for guns on their own."

I'm certainly no stranger to Holographic thought, so I would be willing to accept that as my main thought process (I really would accept any of them except Causal-Deterministic).

I'm sure you see what I mean now.

[Nunki]

Disagree for third time. Post your sources at least.

My head. Rumor has it I'm an introvert, so I get to ignore objective reality, at least while I'm sitting in front of a computer screen.

I was simply riding the wave of (nearly) "every sociotype fits and that that doesn't fit, fits." [. . .] I'm sure you see what I mean now.

Partly it's because I'm trying to encourage people to cast their nets as wide as they can, so that no corner of the socionics universe goes unsearched. I also genuinely seem to be sitting the fence on a lot of the dichotomies (which may or may not be a false appearance).

Right now, the people in this thread are about as far from reaching a consensus on my type as it gets. I'm an Ni-dom, an LSE (which has Ni as the PoLR), and someone who thinks Holographically.

[Absurd]

My head. Rumor has it I'm an introvert, so I get to ignore objective reality, at least while I'm sitting in front of a computer screen.

This is no source.

Partly it's because I'm trying to encourage people to cast their nets as wide as they can, so that no corner of the socionics universe goes unsearched.

LUL.

I also genuinely seem to be sitting the fence on a lot of the dichotomies (which may or may not be a false appearance).

Don't let iron enter your soul.

Right now, the people in this thread are about as far from reaching a consensus on my type as it gets. I'm an Ni-dom, an LSE (which has Ni as the PoLR), and someone who thinks Holographically.

The people, meaning yourself.

[Nunki]

The top contributor to my thread is now banned? . . . Well, I'm going to try injecting some new life into this, anyway.

Today's topic will be the plus and minus variants of the information elements as they relate to me. The following are the weakest descriptions of me out of the 16 listed by Gulenko (and I will briefly explain why): +Si, and -Ti. The former is wrong because I don't pursue relaxation (I'm high-strung, and I don't want to be encouraged to relax, especially when I'm anxious about a problem that needs to be dealt with. Also, relaxation is boring; I want fun, excitement, and activity.) or, to any significant extent, positive feelings of comfort (I'm much more focused on avoiding discomfort). Also, I enjoy eccentricity and a certain amount of roughness. +Ti is wrong because duty and organization are things that I'm largely oblivious to, and I'm averse to self-discipline (I still engage in a certain amount of self-discipline, but I think you get better results and have an overall more enjoyable life if you do things that fit you like a glove because you're passionate about them and derive pleasure from them, rather than things that require you to bend yourself into a certain shape.)

None of the remaining plus/minus functions sound very much like me.

Now let's see if I can come up with some facts about me that may shed some light on my disposition.

1. I hate babying oneself and someone treating me like a child. That's all I can articulate right now. I'm thinking of some other things, but I'm unable to express them.

Never mind, that's all I feel like listing right now. It's all that sprang to mind, and I'm not going to start digging around in my head. My thought process consists of me talking to no one in the most tiresome fashion. I feel that I must become a Buddhist to shut myself up (Buddhism is the most accurate religion about the nature of reality [with the possible exception of certain strains of Hinduism], and a completely worthless guide to life).

[mu4]

I'm not the one who's describing myself as a paragon of the dry and unemotional--the credit for that goes to hkkmr. I don't really dispute their assessment, though. I'm fairly bipolar when it comes to emotionality, and spend about as much time being exaggeratedly expressive as I do being as cold and dry as the moon.

If you're bi-polar about something you could have it in a evaluatory function. This is function 1/4/5/8. Strong judgements come from these functions as they are areas of strongest and weakest.

I don't think you're a paragon of anything, it's just you seem a bit dry. Is this a sensitive area for you? If anything I think your creative function is difficult to tell, but I think you're a ego.

Your last post make me think ILI still.

[Name13]

ILI

[Nunki]

If you're bi-polar about something you could have it in a evaluatory function. This is function 1/4/5/8. Strong judgements come from these functions as they are areas of strongest and weakest.

This is an interesting point; I wasn't aware of this aspect of socionics. But to answer the tacit question, I wouldn't describe my judgment of emotionality as bipolar. I love deep inward feeling, and I love outward displays of emotion. That goes for myself and for other people.

I don't think you're a paragon of anything, it's just you seem a bit dry. Is this a sensitive area for you? If anything I think your creative function is difficult to tell, but I think you're a [Ni] ego.

Being dry is a sensitive area for me, because I dislike the character trait in other people, and I usually want to make an emotional impact of some kind. One thing to point out is that I strive to make my words clear, to the point, and well-structured (I hesitate to say that, because it's something at which I fail miserably). This can look dry, but I'm usually still trying to be stimulating. If I'm not trying to be stimulating, it's because I don't have the energy to do so or don't feel like trying because the interaction leaves me indifferent.

I have mixed feelings about Ni. I don't sit around foreseeing the future all the time; about the only time I look into the future is when I have a specific reason to do so, like if I have a problem that needs to be corrected or if I'm going to be doing something that requires some forethought (I'm probably much quicker than the average person is to resort to forethought). I do enjoy thinking about what the future holds for humanity and the universe at large, and it's something I can do easily, but it's not necessarily something I do very often. The part of Ni that I most relate to is the part of it that is described as misty, irrational, focused on mental imagery, and detached from external reality.

Your last post make me think ILI still.

Like I said before, this is probably one of the more plausible typings of me.

One thing that I have in mind as I try to figure out my socionics type is the fact that I've had extensive involvement in a couple of what I think were asymmetrical relationships. My typing is going to have to make sense in that context; I can't be typed something that would yield an absurd suggestion for those people's types.

[mu4]

This is an interesting point; I wasn't aware of this aspect of socionics. But to answer the tacit question, I wouldn't describe my judgment of emotionality as bipolar. I love deep inward feeling, and I love outward displays of emotion. That goes for myself and for other people.

Being dry is a sensitive area for me, because I dislike the character trait in other people, and I usually want to make an emotional impact of some kind. One thing to point out is that I strive to make my words clear, to the point, and well-structured (I hesitate to say that, because it's something at which I fail miserably). This can look dry, but I'm usually still trying to be stimulating. If I'm not trying to be stimulating, it's because I don't have the energy to do so or don't feel like trying because the interaction leaves me indifferent.

I have mixed feelings about Ni. I don't sit around foreseeing the future all the time; about the only time I look into the future is when I have a specific reason to do so, like if I have a problem that needs to be corrected or if I'm going to be doing something that requires some forethought (I'm probably much quicker than the average person is to resort to forethought). I do enjoy thinking about what the future holds for humanity and the universe at large, and it's something I can do easily, but it's not necessarily something I do very often. The part of Ni that I most relate to is the part of it that is described as misty, irrational, focused on mental imagery, and detached from external reality.

Like I said before, this is probably one of the more plausible typings of me.

One thing that I have in mind as I try to figure out my socionics type is the fact that I've had extensive involvement in a couple of what I think were asymmetrical relationships. My typing is going to have to make sense in that context; I can't be typed something that would yield an absurd suggestion for those people's types.

When you talk of emotionality, what sort of verbalization and communication are you expecting. Emotionality is quite different between the various types and the communication style involved. It seem you would prefer a passionate(4d Fe) type as they're the most outwardly emotional. The 4d Fi types speak in a sincere fashion, often modest and soft but still focus on a ethical communication style where feelings are respected. I think your communication style isn't passionate or sincere, although it might be something you want to be able to achieve.

[Esaman]

I think you are LSI.

I imagine my ideal romantic partner either being a feisty, energetic sort of person with a quality of playfulness about them or someone who is quiet, sensitive, dreamy, and waiting to be claimed. Opposites, really.

EIE is both.

[Nunki]

When you talk of emotionality, what sort of verbalization and communication are you expecting. Emotionality is quite different between the various types and the communication style involved. It seem you would prefer a passionate(4d Fe) type as they're the most outwardly emotional. The 4d Fi types speak in a sincere fashion, often modest and soft but still focus on a ethical communication style where feelings are respected. I think your communication style isn't passionate or sincere, although it might be something you want to be able to achieve.

There's a fairly big difference between how I talk to strangers on a forum and how I talk to people I know, am on intimate terms with, and can see and interact with in real time. When I'm on a forum, I'm frequently at my driest.

But no, I wouldn't say my communication style is sincere, anyway. In my regular interaction, meaning not in a typing thread on a forum where I don't have a lot of history, I'm more focused on making an impact than I am on being sincere. I will twist the truth and exaggerate things, in order to have the desired effect. Usually the desired effect is to be entertaining, so that people will like me. That's practically all I think about when I'm interacting with people I want to be friends with: how to make myself be pleasant company (as well as the conflict this creates between my ego and persona as I find myself replacing the "real me" with a mask.).

Passionate? On the whole, almost certainly not. What are the other communication styles?

Modest and soft isn't something I look for in people's communication with me, although there are plenty of modest and soft people who wear those qualities well. Sincerity and passion are both good, as is respecting people's feelings. I'm not entirely sure what an ethical communication style is. It makes me think of someone who sits around talking about what they feel is right and wrong, probably in soft and deeply concerned tones, which is something that I tend to feel put off by even if my values are largely in line with theirs (and they're usually not).

One of my favorite people to hear talk is Anne Rice. She has several videos posted on Youtube. I think she is both sincere and passionate. I also like the communication style of Ayn Rand (who was a terrible philosopher and a very different person than Anne Rice) in the few videos she did; she mixes passion with structured thoughts and a strong, confident style. I also enjoyed watching the videos done of himself by Chris Crocker, who reminds me of someone I know in real life who really resonated with me.

As far as people who appear in a video format (which is what I'm trying to limit myself to, as that's the most revealing medium that I'll know any famous person from), those are the only ones I can think of who communicate in a fashion I find especially pleasing. Lots of the most enjoyable speakers are dead and inside books.

I think you are LSI.

This is a really out-of-the-blue typing. Aside from the fact that my ideal romantic partner sounded to you like an EIE, what are some other things that you feel suggest LSI as my type? Before you answer, let it be known that I highly doubt I'm an Aggressor. Someone practically has to rape me if they're going to get me, because I'm too shy and insecure to act on my own.

[mu4]

There's a fairly big difference between how I talk to strangers on a forum and how I talk to people I know, am on intimate terms with, and can see and interact with in real time. When I'm on a forum, I'm frequently at my driest.

But no, I wouldn't say my communication style is sincere, anyway. In my regular interaction, meaning not in a typing thread on a forum where I don't have a lot of history, I'm more focused on making an impact than I am on being sincere. I will twist the truth and exaggerate things, in order to have the desired effect. Usually the desired effect is to be entertaining, so that people will like me. That's practically all I think about when I'm interacting with people I want to be friends with: how to make myself be pleasant company (as well as the conflict this creates between my ego and persona as I find myself replacing the "real me" with a mask.).

Passionate? On the whole, almost certainly not. What are the other communication styles?

Modest and soft isn't something I look for in people's communication with me, although there are plenty of modest and soft people who wear those qualities well. Sincerity and passion are both good, as is respecting people's feelings. I'm not entirely sure what an ethical communication style is. It makes me think of someone who sits around talking about what they feel is right and wrong, probably in soft and deeply concerned tones, which is something that I tend to feel put off by even if my values are largely in line with theirs (and they're usually not).

One of my favorite people to hear talk is Anne Rice. She has several videos posted on Youtube. I think she is both sincere and passionate. I also like the communication style of Ayn Rand (who was a terrible philosopher and a very different person than Anne Rice) in the few videos she did; she mixes passion with structured thoughts and a strong, confident style. I also enjoyed watching the videos done of himself by Chris Crocker, who reminds me of someone I know in real life who really resonated with me.

As far as people who appear in a video format (which is what I'm trying to limit myself to, as that's the most revealing medium that I'll know any famous person from), those are the only ones I can think of who communicate in a fashion I find especially pleasing. Lots of the most enjoyable speakers are dead and inside books.

This is a really out-of-the-blue typing. Aside from the fact that my ideal romantic partner sounded to you like an EIE, what are some other things that you feel suggest LSI as my type? Before you answer, let it be known that I highly doubt I'm an Aggressor. Someone practically has to rape me if they're going to get me, because I'm too shy and insecure to act on my own.

The other communication styles are business-like and cold blooded. I don't think you fit business like either.

[Nunki]

The other communication styles are business-like and cold blooded. I don't think you fit business like either.

Okay, I just found a list of the communication styles briefly described by Gulenko. I agree that businesslike is unlikely. Out of the four, it's possibly the worst description of me. Coldblooded is hit and miss. I expect expressiveness, yes, but I also see the mutual transmission of emotion as a crucial aspect of interaction. Also, when I'm hanging out with people, I prefer there to be an active element to it; I want us to be working toward some kind of external goal, otherwise we're just sitting and drifting aimlessly, and it's hard to think of anything to do or say. Passionate sounds like me under ideal, which is to say very infrequent, circumstances. Sincere doesn't really have anything for me to disagree with, but the description is so short that I'm not sure that means much.

[mu4]

Okay, I just found a list of the communication styles briefly described by Gulenko. I agree that businesslike is unlikely. Out of the four, it's possibly the worst description of me. Coldblooded is hit and miss. I expect expressiveness, yes, but I also see the mutual transmission of emotion as a crucial aspect of interaction. Also, when I'm hanging out with people, I prefer there to be an active element to it; I want us to be working toward some kind of external goal, otherwise we're just sitting and drifting aimlessly, and it's hard to think of anything to do or say. Passionate sounds like me under ideal, which is to say very infrequent, circumstances. Sincere doesn't really have anything for me to disagree with, but the description is so short that I'm not sure that means much.

Mutual transmission of emotion is pretty important in relations, but that doesn't mean it's communicated freely or unprovoked. Passionate types warm up cold-blooded types and unlock often hidden emotions. Conversely business like types and sincere types form predictable relations of intimate communication.

[ephemereality]

The OP is Ti-Fe valuing with Ti in ego. I would strongly consider LII as an option. It's important to remember that LIIs often appear very serious because of Fe in super-id and may be mistaken for a serious type in Reinin until you see them interact with another Fe type that helps them to open up. I find that merry-serious is mostly a meaningless dichotomy unless studied in interaction with other people. Something doesn't seem right with the OP being a dynamic type. For one, the OP writes with the precision of Ti rather than Te. You don't see the OP referring to external facts, ideas or systems. Instead logic is formed around some internal criteria and this is how OP seems to judge what type to be or not to be. Furthermore, the OP writes utilizing direct statements. Things are rather than explaining a progress or the development of events, the narrative form associated with dynamic writing. OP seems to follow the writing style more associated with static rather than dynamic types.

I also saw some statements that seemed to appeal to Fe. Very polite and appropriate but it lacks the punch of SeFi that you note in ILIs sooner or later. Also, this guy actually likes Fe socialization? Wut? Not ILI then, not LSE either. Also, it's suggestive that he says he's bad at the things he dislikes in people. Suggests that he's actually devaluing gamma-quadra because he doesn't want to be serious like gammas are, though by nature, LIIs can appear dry like that despite not desiring to be due to Fe dual-seek.

So if I were to suggest any type, I would strongly consider LII first over anything else.

EDIT
I was reading through the rest and then I found this:

I'm a big fan of stability when it ensures that things will remain pleasant, and stability is my worst enemy when it ensures that things will remain bad. I like to know what to expect of the future, and so unexpected changes are jarring to me; on the other hand, I crave novelty, and when things remain the same, never changing, never promising to change, life feels stagnate. I like to feel that there's some progress to be made, a goal to aim for; without that, life doesn't have any good justification. Even under the most pleasant static circumstances, it isn't how things are that makes life worthwhile; it's what things can be made to be.

Ne-Si. So very obviously so.

I asked someone which of the four elements did they think represented me, and they said "water." They explained that there is something flowing about my actions and that I seem like a stream directed along its course by some unknown guiding purpose. On the other hand, I feel that my posture and body language are remarkably stiff, and was recently compared to a statue. Am I unflappable? I get different opinions about this from different people. I've been called histrionic and I've been called stoic. Am I adaptable? No, I don't think I am; I dislike improvisation; I need to know what to expect so that I have a chance to prepare myself, emotionally, intellectually, and physically. The only thing I'm very adaptable about is honoring other people's suddenly expressed wishes; I find it easy to yield to other people's wants, because I typically have no strong desires of my own. But in general, no, I'm not adaptable; I like everything to be known in advance. I'm a planner (albeit not someone who is necessarily very committed to his plans; I would be upset if a really good plan was ruined, but otherwise, I'm a fairly flexible planner and can easily change things as new circumstances arise.).

This reasoning here is very Ne with Ti. Ne throws out options, Ti dissects their logical correctness.

I am not sure I need to read more. Unless you were to produce something that gave a very different impression of your type, I think LII is very likely your type and is a much better fit than IEI. I could buy LSI if you weren't a clear and obvious intuitive, that was apparent with your clash with Absurd about Jung's quote. What you described was a good example of intuition.

DA you're not. This cognition is essentially taking two opposites and see how they have a common source and how each part is integral by the other in order to exist. I can see why a Ti type would superficially relate to this. It sounds like the way Ti operates in how Ti tries to weigh the logical correctness of things and find some internal symmetry to it all, but DA doesn't work like that. DA isn't about symmetry; it's about finding the intent behind something. DA concerns itself about the intent of the maker which is why Gulenko notes that DA types often seek spirituality in their lives, because why would anything else but God be the common source of the universe? Though of course, modern day DA types may more likely be atheists or agnostics and instead you'll find the ILIs deeply entrenched in the field of physics, exactly as Gulenko notes. This is because physics, more than any other science, concerns itself about the origins of the universe, the question why it came to be. In other words, it's about seeking intent, purpose and meaning. Also, IEI is vortical-synergetic. It works like a whirlwind, probing options and possibilities to see what fits. In the IEI, this would mostly occur in the realm of humanism in order to understand and make sense of people and interpersonal relationships though it does of course not always need to be. Plenty of IEIs in the sciences.

This is an example of DA:
Imagine the concept of Yin and Yang. On the one hand you have Yin, symbolically represented by water and also represents all that which is feminine; on the other hand you have Yang, symbolically represented by fire and also represents all that is masculine. Yin and Yang are opposing forces and can thus never be be one force, never be united as one. Yet they are inextricably linked to each other, depending on each other in order to exist. Without one there is no other, just like there is no darkness without light (forget the scientific explanation, it's the symbolism I'm getting at). So they are the one and the same, yet they are diametrically opposed of each other. The way DA understands this is that there is unity in difference, it has the same source, just like man and woman was created by God. Unity occurs through the act of common intent in creation, rather than the objects being the same in having the same qualities.

As for enneagram, this is indicative as type 3 image creation though not necessarily your core. I find that people often end up talking about their image issues in relation to people:

I'm more focused on making an impact than I am on being sincere. I will twist the truth and exaggerate things, in order to have the desired effect. Usually the desired effect is to be entertaining, so that people will like me. That's practically all I think about when I'm interacting with people I want to be friends with: how to make myself be pleasant company (as well as the conflict this creates between my ego and persona as I find myself replacing the "real me" with a mask.).

[Nunki]

Mutual transmission of emotion is pretty important in relations, but that doesn't mean it's communicated freely or unprovoked. Passionate types warm up cold-blooded types and unlock often hidden emotions. Conversely business like types and sincere types form predictable relations of often spontaneous reciprocation.

That makes Sincere sound even more plausible, then. Because in the context of friendship I do communicate emotion freely and without provocation (the only time I put a lid on that is if I think certain feelings might have a negative impact on the other person), and my relationships are generally either fairly spontaneous, with both of us playing our part in breaking the ice, or they never go anywhere. Also, there are a number of times when it's been me who had to warm someone else up, although I do usually play a passive role (much more in a general sense than an emotional sense) in my interaction with others.

The OP is Ti-Fe valuing with Ti in ego. I would strongly consider LII as an option. It's important to remember that LIIs often appear very serious because of Fe in super-id and may be mistaken for a serious type in Reinin until you see them interact with another Fe type that helps them to open up. I find that merry-serious is mostly a meaningless dichotomy unless studied in interaction with other people. Something doesn't seem right with the OP being a dynamic type. For one, the OP writes with the precision of Ti rather than Te. You don't see the OP referring to external facts, ideas or systems. Instead logic is formed around some internal criteria and this is how OP seems to judge what type to be or not to be. Furthermore, the OP writes utilizing direct statements. Things are rather than explaining a progress or the development of events, the narrative form associated with dynamic writing. OP seems to follow the writing style more associated with static rather than dynamic types.

I also saw some statements that seemed to appeal to Fe. Very polite and appropriate but it lacks the punch of SeFi that you note in ILIs sooner or later. Also, this guy actually likes Fe socialization? Wut? Not ILI then, not LSE either. Also, it's suggestive that he says he's bad at the things he dislikes in people. Suggests that he's actually devaluing gamma-quadra because he doesn't want to be serious like gammas are, though by nature, LIIs can appear dry like that despite not desiring to be due to Fe dual-seek.

So if I were to suggest any type, I would strongly consider LII first over anything else.

I think it's pretty decently likely that I'm Ti > Te, because I have a very skeptical attitude toward external facts, evidence, and systems; I see them as being like statistics, in that they can be used to prove anything. Also, I dislike research and trivia. I do like efficiency, though, which isn't to say that I'm good at it, because I'm not.

Okay, but if I'm an LII, where's the Si and Ne valuing? The Ne I could probably accept (some aspects of it are very correct; I don't relate to the wacky, random inventor side and I'm not particularly focused on potentiality, but creativity and attention to essences are traits of mine), but more so than any other IM, Si seems like something that I specifically devalue. And if I do value Si, I almost certainly value Delta Si over Alpha Si.

Also, yay for warranting someone's first post (and no that isn't some kind of pathetic attempt at looking emotionally expressive).

Isn't stating how things are associated with Irrationality rather than Static?

[ephemereality]

I think it's pretty decently likely that I'm Ti > Te, because I have a very skeptical attitude toward external facts, evidence, and systems; I see them as being like statistics, in that they can be used to prove anything. Also, I dislike research and trivia. I do like efficiency, though, which isn't to say that I'm good at it, because I'm not.

What does efficiency mean to you? How do you understand efficiency? What way would you go on to be efficient in your life if you could?

Okay, but if I'm an LII, where's the Si and Ne valuing? The Ne I could probably accept (some aspects of it are very correct; I don't relate to the wacky, random inventor side and I'm not particularly focused on potentiality, but creativity and attention to essences are traits of mine), but more so than any other IM, Si seems like something that I specifically devalue. And if I do value Si, I almost certainly value Delta Si over Alpha Si.

Please see my edited post. I highlighted one of your comments that exemplified Ne-Si > Se-Ni.

Also, yay for warranting someone's first post (and no that isn't some kind of pathetic attempt at looking emotionally expressive).

Is it? Or is it not? It sure comes across as an emotionally expressive statement. Whether it is pathetic or not is something you judged yourself.

Isn't stating how things are associated with Irrationality rather than Static?

Static reasoning states what is. This is different to stating the way things are. Stating the way things are might be something I might associate with Si specifically, since Ni doesn't concern itself as much about "the way things are" as much as it concerns about "the way things should be". You aren't describing the dynamic process of Pi in ego though, nor do you express Fe to such a degree where I might consider you Fe ego. For one there is too much Ti. Even IEI-Ni types that have a stronger preference towards Ti do not Ti this much as you do. Also, the way Ni observes the intuitive world is through the observation of the dynamic effects that occurs in the world. This is why socionics often describes Ni as being able to prophecize or make predictions about the future. One of the things that made me suspect that you're not Ni base though I initially thought so too is because your way of understanding the world felt very different to my way of understanding the world. I type as an ILI-Ni and I've spoken to a fair amount of IEIs and what ultimately threw me off despite that I was seriously considering it at some point is that you don't seem to think like they do. For one you lack the harshness of Ni-Se. Se is very "punchy", it hits you in the face, because Se is also referred to as volitional action in that Se expresses force and control over the physical environment. This is why Se types are often described as aggressive and sensation-seeking.

As for irrationality, irrationality is about observation, and Pi specifically observes what has occurred, what is occurring and what will occur. Pi builds models based on what is known and what can be observed now in order to understand the present and the future. Ni does this by taking what is known and projects predictions or to stake out paths for action. This is why the Ni type seeks the energy of Se that can push them into action and actually realize those goals. Ni thinks very long-term in that the planning is very precise and accurate and might involve several years of how to achieve a specific goal. What is specific to Ni is its singularity. It doesn't attempt to change things from the way things are now. Stagnation is a concept that is unknown to the Ni type because stagnation cannot exist because the idea of stagnation or being stuck in a rut suggests that one thinks statically as opposed to dynamically in that what is experienced now has a static character to it, ergo stagnant in that it seems unchanging. Dynamic reasoning doesn't see things this way. Where we are now is simply one event out of many events of where we will be going, and we ended up here exactly because this is where we were going to end up based on our own actions and desires. There is always an option out of this, the question is whether it is a desirable one. Life is always moving. Time is always moving. There is no such thing as stagnation because life itself is ever-changing and sometimes these changes occur against our wills, randomly. They are a matter of fact because it is a part of life. Stagnation too then, is a part of this flow. This isn't a matter of fate, but it is a matter based on our own decisions and desires. Becoming aware of how time flows makes it possible to take control and stake out a course of action. That way you will never be stagnant because you will always be moving somewhere. The real question is where you are moving and I think this is often the real question when dealing with life for many Ni types. Where do you want to go or end up in the future?

[mu4]

That makes Sincere sound even more plausible, then. Because in the context of friendship I do communicate emotion freely and without provocation (the only time I put a lid on that is if I think certain feelings might have a negative impact on the other person), and my relationships are generally either fairly spontaneous, with both of us playing our part in breaking the ice, or they never go anywhere. Also, there are a number of times when it's been me who had to warm someone else up, although I do usually play a passive role (much more in a general sense than an emotional sense) in my interaction with others.

I think it's pretty decently likely that I'm Ti > Te, because I have a very skeptical attitude toward external facts, evidence, and systems; I see them as being like statistics, in that they can be used to prove anything. Also, I dislike research and trivia. I do like efficiency, though, which isn't to say that I'm good at it, because I'm not.

Okay, but if I'm an LII, where's the Si and Ne valuing? The Ne I could probably accept (some aspects of it are very correct; I don't relate to the wacky, random inventor side and I'm not particularly focused on potentiality, but creativity and attention to essences are traits of mine), but more so than any other IM, Si seems like something that I specifically devalue. And if I do value Si, I almost certainly value Delta Si over Alpha Si.

Also, yay for warranting someone's first post (and no that isn't some kind of pathetic attempt at looking emotionally expressive).

Isn't stating how things are associated with Irrationality rather than Static?

LII's aren't a sincere type, IEI's or SEI however are. I don't think you're LII, you're too long winded and don't get to the point fast enough.

[Nunki]

This is an example of DA:
Imagine the concept of Yin and Yang. On the one hand you have Yin, symbolically represented by water and also represents all that which is feminine; on the other hand you have Yang, symbolically represented by fire and also represents all that is masculine. Yin and Yang are opposing forces and can thus never be be one force, never be united as one. Yet they are inextricably linked to each other, depending on each other in order to exist. Without one there is no other, just like there is no darkness without light (forget the scientific explanation, it's the symbolism I'm getting at). So they are the one and the same, yet they are diametrically opposed of each other. The way DA understands this is that there is unity in difference, it has the same source, just like man and woman was created by God. Unity occurs through the act of common intent in creation, rather than the objects being the same in having the same qualities.

This sounds a great deal like the way I think and see the world, so you're actually making me think I'm DA even more. I'm an atheist and doubt anyone created this universe, so common intent in creation does not really apply, but everything else you said is resonating with me (a special kudos goes to you for symbolism > scientific explanations). How I would say it is that there is an implied unity in the manifest lack of unity that pervades any two things. This unity is a negative existence, like the full moon implied by the quarter moon or the filled-in disk implied by an empty circle. The fact that I recognize this unity as a nonexistence, a thing that is absent, and believe that this absence is inherent to reality by definition, is part of what distinguishes me from theists.

Is it? Or is it not? It sure comes across as an emotionally expressive statement. Whether it is pathetic or not is something you judged yourself.

It is because I say it is. : P And here is why: there's a difference between how I think and how I express myself. Internally I'm basically a postmodernist--it's all a matter of perspective, nothing is set in stone, and the only escape from that is that some things impress me (all that matters is the impression) as being objective facts (postmodernism, like most or all systems of thought, contains the seed of its own destruction)--but I like to express myself in a confident and decisive fashion, so I don't say "here is how it could be," "here is how I think it is," or "this is one way of looking at it." I say, "this is how it is." That feels good to me; it's fun and sounds confident.

Ti is basically one of my nemeses. I hate how restrictive logic is. I want to believe anything I like, and break as many rules as I can while I'm at it; I'm not going to let some system tell me what to think. And I think that logic is an illusion; things are basically unjustified, absurd, irrational. I embrace that; I don't run from it or punish myself by trying to live up to the standards of logic when rigorous logic isn't natural, reasonable, or even possible.

You wrote a lot of very thorough and interesting things outside of that quote. Let's see if I can address some of them in a fashion more direct than the one so far employed in this message.

- I understand that reality is basically dynamic--stasis is an abstract nonexistence. This is a consequence of, or to put it more correctly, entailed by what I said about reality in the first paragraph. Whether this translates to me being dynamic in socionics terms, I do not know.

- I'm very much a planner, so that aspect of Ni is a good description of me. I'm a J in the MBTI. And like you said of Ni doms, I want someone who will spur me to action, someone who will give me that extra little push. I get trapped in my ruminations and hopes and dreams and don't act even when I realize it's imperative for me to act.

- There's a little bit of irony in how you're saying that you don't identify with my way of seeing the world, and yet I largely identify with the Yin and Yang example you gave.

- Stagnation is a part of the flow, but it still exists and sucks. The word is certainly not meaningless, at least not especially more so than any other word (all words are a little bit meaningless, a view which surely exemplifies a partial absence of Ti).

- No one has really asked me to describe my thought processes, and so I really haven't done so. I'm not sure, therefore, what you're referring to when you say I'm not describing Pi in the ego.

- I don't really observe the world at all. I'm basically cut off from reality. So if observing the world is a part of Ni, I must not be Ni unless "world" means something like . . . your thoughts and feelings. I mean, I watch movies sometimes, and occasionally I come across something that catches my eye, but the main thing I observe is just the things going through my head; I have a bunch of little imitations of worldly things in there.

- There's a lot of Ti in me right now, but for the larger portion of my life, there was very little that was Ti about me. Ti is something I started doing in my teen years, and which I've probably gotten rather good at (it stems from a streak of perfectionism; Ti is a way of ensuring that I'm not making mistakes in my self-expression, and it allows me to perfect the structures of various artistic projects that I do. It's also a general way of checking for errors in different claims and, by extension, determining what statements can't be true because they simply don't express anything coherent). The earliest function I remember using would be Ni, I think. I was very mystical, spiritual, and intuitive, from an early age. That isn't to say that I think I'm Ni, though; I leave that as a hanging question. I could be wrong about the IM that was responsible for that.

- Throwing options on the table and determining how true they are is something that everyone who starts a thread like this is doing on some level, usually a very direct and obvious level. So I don't see that as having anything to do with Ne. And most of my commentary really has nothing specifically to do with the logical correctness of people's suggestions. I'm not saying that the descriptions or labels are logically self-contradictory (incidentally, I'm a fan of contradiction; I view the ability to be inconsistent as something that is healthy and desirable); I'm saying that I do or don't identify with them. That could just as easily be Fi as Ti, and it could also simply be common self-awareness. So for Ne, in particular, I'm going to need something more substantial.

- I'm still not seeing the Si valuing in me. Si is basically my least favorite function, and certainly not something that I want people to provide me with. And if I were Si-valuing, it would be Delta Si, not Alpha Si.

- By novelty I don't mean anything related to Ne. What I'm trying to get at is that I spend all of my time sitting around the house doing nothing. I like to be doing things, I like to be moving my life forward and having fun and all of that wonderful stuff, and that requires me to be somewhere other than my house: i.e. a novel environment. That's the limited sense in which I crave novelty. I don't by any means like novelty as a rule, and frequently find it silly or annoying when it isn't directly to my purpose. It would be clearer, perhaps, to say that I crave activity and currently lack activity.

[Saberstorm]

I am beginning to think that all the deeper side of Socionics should be explored after you have established your type. I really do not think that Reinin, Gulenko and the merry band of Alpha NT post Soviet thinkers are good for typing. They do something else. The deep stuff is about how to use you after we get to know you.

I think that typing should be Model J - the most primitive form of Socionics. We should just focus on his Program Function, Creative Function, Vulnerable Function and Suggestive Function. (1,2,4 & 5) and not do anything deep until later.

It is four basic ideas: We must continually hammer on them till he declares a type.

1) You have faith in yourself - something nobody can take away from you - what is it?
2) You have something you want to accomplish.
4) There is something that causes you pain.
5) There is something that can kick start your life and get it going.

ONLY focus on Model J for type. Do not go deep. You know your type, you are also just fucking with us. You are an ILI.

1) You have faith in your ability to introspect. Nobody can take that away.
5) You need other people to motivate you. You are a lump.

4 & 2 are harder to understand: Function 4 triggers Function 2 to appear.

Function 4 is you experience pain at the idea of savoring the permanency of positive experiences with others. You believe that the universe is without love. There is no life in the void - and the void is endemic to reality as you understand it. Consciousness is an illusion and so on. You want to replace the permanency of shared joy with objective logic. Your goal is to experience a form of concrete truth that transcends any and all group ethics. Quit pulling our leg, Balzac. We know your type now.