I always have to remember not to do this, but in my defense I'm still waiting for good solid explanation of what explicit versus objects and implicit versus fields means—because of this information gap, my self typing is weird to people: I can identify that I'm dynamic, mostly conscious of dynamic functions and unconscious of static and further, DA, if you buy cogstyles...then all I can say is, I'm not strong in BOTH Ni and Fi because I miss some implicit fields information. And from there I usually eliminate delta st because I'm ridiculously impractical and bad at time management, always have been, and LIE ESE because their mirrors are the more likely temperaments AND cogstyle. The forum never bothers to understand SEI nor get good examples of the type (Mu should hire someone) and I don't come off as very similar to what the forum deems ILI, so my processing hangs trying to decide between those two. Going back and examining where this logic might have erred would take 10pg but I think about it when driving...basically eg if I'm wrong about being dynamic I could be LSI, by other loopholes could make a case for ILE or aristocratic Ej, and if I'm feeling really muzzy I might decide I'm positivist and add back the other two Ej, which leaves me with 6-8 types that don't strike me as obviously categorically wrong (Ej, dem Ip, CD Ti)
I've worn grooves in my mind thinking about this: truly I've considered quite a lot of information that forumite don't have access to. And so typings like IEI, ESI, and EII just based on 1) a forumite seeing me as similar to some archetypal description or invented VI standard, or worse: 2) a forumite seeing me as similar to someone they know irl (I question @
Adam Strange being logics ego as opposed to like IEE because he apparently sees this method as nearly as good as any other.... Where do I begin describing how this will yield so many more errors in a system already plagued by vaguery masquerading as incisive categories... Even 3) gestalt impression of even the forumite who knows me best won't seem high level of evidence if it falls outside the parameters
I've set. Apparently I keep implying others are Bad at socionics—not my intention. They're simply wrong