Type me please!! ILI or LII?

[Number 9 large]

My Typing (if socionics is even a real thing)


Hi guys, I'm Number 9 large (props if you get the reference lol), and I stumbled on this questionnaire, which I believe is used to type people? I identify a lot with LII (INTj), ILI (INTp) and recently, LIE (ENTj). I've also believed I once was the mbti INFP, socionics ESTp, ESTj, ISTj and ENTp.

According to my last test on sociotype.com/test I value Ti, Te, Ni, Ne, have moderate Se and Si, and very low Fi and Fe.
That doesn't really type me as anything at all, so I question the validty of socionics in general.

Out of all the functions there are 8x8= 64 combinations, not 16, and my second last test got me both INTj and INTp as equally matched, with ENTj being 98% as likely.
On my most most recent test I got ISTp, with INTp and ENTj being 98% as likely.
Sometimes I wonder what bullshit I'm even studying, but still this theory catches a lot of my hours of attention, because I have a feeling that we're onto something here, especially concerning visual typing and the concept of duality, which I can relate to very well, because I tend to fall for what I think are SEE's (or ESE's), I'm not sure about that one.

Anyway here are the questions. Let me know what you think of me and my ideas, mostly. Brutal honesty, please.

1. What is beauty? What is love?
True love doesn't exist. It's just a concept made up by human beings to give meaning to the feeling they feel when they are physically attracted to someone. Beauty equals physical attraction, or appreciation of an objects looks.


2. What are your most important values?


I understand that life is inherently meaningless, therefore my values are simply relative to what I think is best. This means that in practical day to day matters, I tend to speak well of a 'live and let live' attitude. I understand that we are all in the same boat of useless existence, this is really the only thing that we have in common with all living beings, and we acknowledge it by respecting one another.

So in short, respect, treat others the way you want to be treated, and live and let live. On the other hand, I completely understand the law of the jungle and accept it as a natural state of affairs, and it seems to be a hidden human agenda aswel. In the end we are all selfish, we only help others to increase gain for ourselves.


3. Do you have any sort of spiritual/religious beliefs, and why do you hold (or don't) those beliefs in the first place?


I think I identify as a nihilist, as you may have noticed Therefore I believe life is inherently meaningless. Our lives are not any more meaningful than that of bacteria, or flies that live for a day.

We come here, reproduce and die, that's basically the cycle of life. Meaning, as we know it, is absent, and any meaning you give to this life is equally meaningless and mundane, something to pass your time on earth by.


4. Opinion on war and militaries? What is power to you?


I despise war, as I think we can get a lot more profit from working together as a unified planet. I think war is stupid, serving selfish and corrupted power games, driven by fear and greed. It's the individuals and nations that think they are a unity that are the problem. In reality we are all in the same boat, and can accomplish brotherhood from that fact alone, but people are too stupid to see it.


5. What have you had long conversations about? What are your interests? Why?

Conversations: The meaning of life, religion, philosophy, also socionics, psychology in general, love, finding your partner.


6. Interested in health/medicine as a conversation topic? Are you focused on your body?

Actually I am working out for 2 years now, to attract girls. I like to discuss training programs and the best and fastest way to get ripped.


7. What do you think of daily chores?

Boring, mundane, try not to focus on them, procrastinate untill I get into problems and can't ignore them anymore.


8. Books or films you liked? Recently read/watched or otherwise. Examples welcome.

The Gladiator, Harry Potter in my teenage years. Also liked the Revenant.



9. What has made you cry? What has made you smile? Why?


Not being understood by others, loneliness, rejection by girls, feeling alienated and different than other people, but not in an inferior way, but more that they just don't get it, and when I try to explain myself I always end up dissapointed, not getting the well-informed responses that I long for.
In the end I mask myself with a smile, but on the inside I know I am lonely and prone to be misunderstood, while I almost always mean well...What makes me smile? Dark humor.



10. Where do you feel: at one with the environment/a sense of belonging?

I actually don't really feel a sense of belonging (see my previous response.) in my daily life.

I identify as a nihilist though, and if I had to choose I would choose to identify with philosophers, great thinkers that were ahead of their time, living in the wrong time period.


11. What have people seen as your weaknesses? What do you dislike about yourself?

I dislike that I am different, while at the same time cherishing it.

I would not like to be more stupid just so I can fit in, although I am interested in what it would feel like to be fitting in.

What people see as my weakness is never ending doubts, indecision. My weakness is endless pondering over situations and usually social obligations, which I then usually, after a couple of nights bad sleep, blow off, usually regretting it later, but it's the only way to stop the never ending doubt and fear that bugs my mind at times.



12. What have people seen as your strengths? What do you like about yourself?

Actually I don't really get the impression that people like me all that much. Some people (I think?), like it when I give objective advice to them, but even that I think most people simply don't appreciate, as I don't either.

I think what people do like about me is my sincereness and honesty. Sadly few can meet me halfway with these qualities.
I've heard from girls that they think I'm cute, but that's not really a mental quality, more a physical one.

I also consicously exercise bodybuilding to make up for my mental 'deficiencies' of not fitting in.



13. In what areas of your life would you like help?
Maybe someone to do all the useless daily chores that I so hate, like cleaning up my room, renewing my identification card or other useless bureaucratic procedures that in the end always get me into trouble.



14. Ever feel stuck in a rut? If yes, describe the causes and your reaction to it.

Sometimes, but at the moment I feel like I am moving somewhere useful.

I had it last year, when I was studying psychology and philosophy in college, but actually I wanted to go to law school, because I just know I am going to be jobless and useless if I finish those two studies. I'd rather philosophise in my free time about whatever I want (rather than forced topics which I might engage in only if it suits me)

Law school would serve me as a tool to obtain money, so I can engage my dreams of conducting a full-blown research on socionics (perhaps, this idea occurred to me yesterday, so it might change, because I am personally really sceptic of this ideology and perhaps pseudoscience, but I have a feeling that we're onto something here.

Especially Filatova's visual identification strikes me as very very interesting and unusual, but strikingly familiar, and it would serve me really well if I could identify personal features from people by simply looking at them.

I might write a book about that someday, if I can



15. What qualities do you most like and dislike in other people? What types do you get along with?

I actually find that I am very attracted to very spontaneous and fun-loving girls, who according to socionics, might identify as either ESE's or SEE's.

Have always been.

They seem to possess some fun-loving spontaneous quality that I cannot muster, and I envy them, while at the same time being attracted to them, they draw me in :-)



16. How do you feel about romance/sex? What qualities do you want in a partner?

I want her to be physically fit, to the same degree as me. If physical attraction would scale from 1-10 and I am an 8, then I would want her to be an 8 aswel, no more no less. This would prevent cheating, as we both know we can't get any better than ourselves.

For personal qualites, see the previous question

I like women who take the initiative, who are assertive and dominant in bed at least, this makes me feel like I'm not fucking a corpse you know? I don't like helpless women, I like strong individuals who know what they want and how they want it.
This I truly adore.



17. If you were to raise a child, what would be your main concerns, what measures would you take, and why?
I would let the kid decide his life for himself mostly. I would let him make obvious mistakes I would see coming, because I know life is the best teacher, and I would only withhold him from her teachings if I would protect him from every harm, it would make life boring and meaningless ( which it already is, but you know what I mean.)



18. A friend makes a claim that clashes with your current beliefs. What is your inward and outward reaction?

Inward: I am willing to listen if their claim is concurrent with reason. If not, then I lable than as stupid inherently.

Outward: Willing to listen, if their claim is irrational, I try to ask them skeptical questions of why they say that or claim that, and try to refute it with logic, if that doesn't work I simply give up and decide that that person is probably not really worth my time lol, at least for that discussion anyway.



19. Describe your relationship to society. How do you see people as a whole? What do you consider a prevalent social problem? Name one.Prevalent social problem: Us vs Them mentality. We are all one people. We are all living beings, monkeys, horses whatever, it's all the same really, just different outtings of life. Distinctions only really exist in our minds.

Oh and mindless adherence to football clubs, wtf is that even about, the most stupid thing.

You could call me a critic, skeptic. Don't believe anything they say to you, unless you know it's true yourself, which you don't, so yea


20. How do you choose your friends and how do you behave around them?

I don't really choose them, they choose me, it happens naturally.

Around my friends I like to crack rude jokes and see if they crack, if they do, then they're not worth my time. If they can retalitate with equal banter, I really appreciate that lol.

I like to torment people a bit with words and unscrutinized logic, packed in a friendly manner.



21. How do you behave around strangers?

restrained, passive, try to light up the mood with sarcastic remarks

If you've read through all this bullshit, congratulations. I have a couple of questions for you.

- How would you type me?
- Do you think socionics represents reality? Why, why not; partial reality?
- What is the difference between ENTj-Ni and INTp-Te?

Thanks for reading.

[Olimpia]

I get the impression you might be an LSI-Ti 6w5 Sp/Sx.

To answer your questions: I do think that Socionics represents reality, or rather that it can describe the reality of people's personality types and "information metabolisms" rather well. I suppose to some extent it describes partial reality, simply because it only focuses on one aspect of the human psyche and personality. Other additions to "mapping out" the human personality are the Enneagram, Big 5, attachment style theory, and so forth.

Essentially, ENTj is Te lead and has 4D (aka strong) Demonstrative Ne, whereas INTp is Ni lead and has 4D (aka strong) Demonstrative Ti. ENTjs are more entrepreneurial/inventive/innovational or "implementalist" so to speak, whereas INTps are more theoretical/philosophical/analytical.

But I think you are more likely not actually an Intuitive type. You seem to have boosted Intuition (Ni), but you don't seem to be an Intuition lead nor demonstrative (nor Fi valuing for that matter).

Your preference in women sounds like Se valuing (which makes me rule out Si valuing for you). Someone might judge that preference as you being Se seeking, but I've known of Se ego types, especially xSI 6s, who prefer someone to be more Aggressor-like and assertive. Type 6s like strength in themselves and others, and most Se ego 6s I have known were with a fellow Se ego type. My guess is that the kind of women you are the most into are SEEs (or similar), but ESEs would be a better fit for you.

Here is one quote that sounds pretty Beta (ST) - esp. Fe/Ti valuing:

In reality we are all in the same boat, and can accomplish brotherhood from that fact alone, but people are too stupid to see it.

Your comment on despising war in that context seems to be your Fi Role.

P.S: A lot of LSIs I have known would mistype as INTx, especially the Ti subtype ones.

[Exodus]

"law of the jungle", "nihilism" - Ni/Se values
unity and brotherhood - Fe
getting ripped - Se
never ending doubts - Ni > Se
philosophizing - Ni/Ti
likes strength - Se, and "spontaneous and fun-loving" - this is actually Fe

Beta values seem clear. As for your strengths, it's difficult to see you as an Se lead type due to the doubtfulness. You also seem to have some degree of Ne (disliking "us vs them" mentality) and Fe (lightening up the atmosphere). I think I prefer IEI but other Beta types are plausible. It's more common for Beta NF types to feel like they don't fit in or are outsiders in some way.

[scio]

I think LSI as well. There are a lot of things that indicate you won't change your behavior to suit people & you tell jokes to see if people "crack"
You clearly value Se/Ni and Fe

[Chae]

Ok... gotta be honest and less constructive with y'all. I hate the attitude behind the answers. I was pissed off throughout the entire questionnaire. That seems rude and inappropriate on my side, but at least (lmao) that tells us something useful either way: Put him into Beta, no or values whatsoever. > should be clear as well. I apologize for disrespect, but I just didn't like what was stated, methods.

[darya]

ILI?

[Olimpia]

Ok... gotta be honest and less constructive with y'all. I hate the attitude behind the answers. I was pissed off throughout the entire questionnaire. That seems rude and inappropriate on my side, but at least (lmao) that tells us something useful either way: Put him into Beta, no or values whatsoever. > should be clear as well. I apologize for disrespect, but I just didn't like what was stated, methods.

Ofc this is not the best way to type someone, but it is interesting you had such a strong negative reaction to it. It might be a sign he's your conflictor after all.

[Chae]

Ofc this is not the best way to type someone, but it is interesting you had such a strong negative reaction to it. It might be a sign he's your conflictor after all.

I know, that's why I didn't go all out I followed hotel's notion elsewhere that attitude assessment isn't such a bad first move in typing. Could be, could not be, but the and (banter and whatnot) were irritating. Same reaction I had to Eminem in the other thread if that helps. Maybe that also indicates some cp6 SX/SP in there, 5 is there either way for the Beta nihilism squad

[Aylen]

Ofc this is not the best way to type someone, but it is interesting you had such a strong negative reaction to it. It might be a sign he's your conflictor after all.

'

OP reminds me a lot of @Wyrd, not just in vibe but actual worldview so I find her reaction rather amusing.

Maybe I am the only one who see it.

[Pallas]

'

OP reminds me a lot of @Wyrd, not just in vibe but actual worldview so I find her reaction rather amusing.

Maybe I am the only one who see it.

...This worldview is not close at all, but anyone who would pick a controversial and harsher worldview (whether they view it as "positive" in some vague sense for themselves or not) would have to have some significant trait in common with me. It's like when I see atheists and religious fundamentalists arguing on Internet forums all the time and I think "You guys agree on almost everything and have somehow managed to make the one thing you disagree on the only thing you (and seemingly most anyone) can see..." People who are really, completely different tend to just not meet each other at all, like how black and white are opposites, but shark and cloud are not, even though black and white have way more in common than sharks and clouds. It's like a wolf tone.

I also put that I like to work on mine (including chores), don't like bureaucracies though because they're slow and tend to screw things up over and over for me.

[Chae]

'

OP reminds me a lot of @Wyrd, not just in vibe but actual worldview so I find her reaction rather amusing.

Maybe I am the only one who see it.

Now we have a pattern:
Eminem - IEI
Wyrd - IEI
OP - IEI

#SherlockLogic #PerfectDeduction #TiPoLRDefeated #Success #AugustaPride #BetaTakeOver

[Pallas]

Now we have a pattern:
Eminem - IEI
Wyrd - IEI
OP - IEI

#SherlockLogic #PerfectDeduction #TiPoLRDefeated #Success #AugustaPride #BetaTakeOver

Stereotype IEIS = soft hamsters [/reference]
Actual IEIS = Grim Dark

?

According to Strati, all Betas are super strong and hard, including somehow IEIs, so Chae might be onto something, in opposition to all the "Te PoLR stops me from doing things so I cut my wrists" that seems to be the meme on this forum (socionics is officially MBTI).

(Although I don't self-type in any consistent way at all at the moment, just play around occasionally and fight people when they say obviously wrong or troll-y things or things out of spite. I should minimize my contact with stereotypes until I'm back to normal energy levels since stereotypes are dangerous when you're broken down, see: cult brainwashing, even if it's not near that level.)

[Olimpia]

And I thought Chae was joking...

[Aylen]

...This worldview is not close at all, but anyone who would pick a controversial and harsher worldview (whether they view it as "positive" in some vague sense for themselves or not) would have to have some significant trait in common with me. It's like when I see atheists and religious fundamentalists arguing on Internet forums all the time and I think "You guys agree on almost everything and have somehow managed to make the one thing you disagree on the only thing you (and seemingly most anyone) can see..." People who are really, completely different tend to just not meet each other at all, like how black and white are opposites, but shark and cloud are not, even though black and white have way more in common than sharks and clouds. It's like a wolf tone.

I also put that I like to work on mine (including chores), don't like bureaucracies though because they're slow and tend to screw things up over and over for me.

I wasn't judging it, just making an observation.

This random quote from op can be used for comparison since it sounds very similar to things you have said. It carries the same essence if not exact wording. If I were inclined I could probably find a lot of quotes of yours that carry the same essence as the op's. I am not suggesting any type for either of you.

Not being understood by others, loneliness, rejection by girls, feeling alienated and different than other people, but not in an inferior way, but more that they just don't get it, and when I try to explain myself I always end up dissapointed, not getting the well-informed responses that I long for.
In the end I mask myself with a smile, but on the inside I know I am lonely and prone to be misunderstood, while I almost always mean well...What makes me smile? Dark humor.

[Aylen]

Now we have a pattern:
Eminem - IEI
Wyrd - IEI
OP - IEI

#SherlockLogic #PerfectDeduction #TiPoLRDefeated #Success #AugustaPride #BetaTakeOver

That face!

[Pallas]

I wasn't judging it, just making an observation.

This random quote from op can be used for comparison since it sounds very similar to things you have said. It carries the same essence if not exact wording. If I were inclined I could probably find a lot of quotes of yours that carry the same essence as the op's. I am not suggesting any type for either of you.

I didn't mean that as a judgement, just that I view worldview as being something that sort of expands from one point and this doesn't triangulate the same from his quotes to me although the dynamic leading it to the point it's at is very similar. It's not really entirely opposite or oppositional either in the same way as atheists and devout Christians arguing on Internet forums, more like people arguing over whether Hellenismos is a form of paganism or paganism just means Wicca at this point, and the Hellenismos wanting to stay far away from the Wiccans to keep their identity.

[Chae]

That face!

 

Ikr, I have more by him if you're interested. Feel free to steal it's great for reactions. These make my day I can't stop crying

[Exodus]

I know, that's why I didn't go all out I followed hotel's notion elsewhere that attitude assessment isn't such a bad first move in typing.

Please don't blame me, I never suggested you should argue a typing based on your feelings.

[Number 9 large]

I get the impression you might be an LSI-Ti 6w5 Sp/Sx.

To answer your questions: I do think that Socionics represents reality, or rather that it can describe the reality of people's personality types and "information metabolisms" rather well. I suppose to some extent it describes partial reality, simply because it only focuses on one aspect of the human psyche and personality. Other additions to "mapping out" the human personality are the Enneagram, Big 5, attachment style theory, and so forth.

Essentially, ENTj is Te lead and has 4D (aka strong) Demonstrative Ne, whereas INTp is Ni lead and has 4D (aka strong) Demonstrative Ti. ENTjs are more entrepreneurial/inventive/innovational or "implementalist" so to speak, whereas INTps are more theoretical/philosophical/analytical.

But I think you are more likely not actually an Intuitive type. You seem to have boosted Intuition (Ni), but you don't seem to be an Intuition lead nor demonstrative (nor Fi valuing for that matter).

Your preference in women sounds like Se valuing (which makes me rule out Si valuing for you). Someone might judge that preference as you being Se seeking, but I've known of Se ego types, especially xSI 6s, who prefer someone to be more Aggressor-like and assertive. Type 6s like strength in themselves and others, and most Se ego 6s I have known were with a fellow Se ego type. My guess is that the kind of women you are the most into are SEEs (or similar), but ESEs would be a better fit for you.

Here is one quote that sounds pretty Beta (ST) - esp. Fe/Ti valuing:



Your comment on despising war in that context seems to be your Fi Role.

P.S: A lot of LSIs I have known would mistype as INTx, especially the Ti subtype ones.

But if I'm a LSI, how come I value Se in women? Am I not supposed to be a dual with ENFj's, then?

Also, I don't really get what ''6w5 Sp/Sx'' means

[Olimpia]

But if I'm a LSI, how come I value Se in women? Am I not supposed to be a dual with ENFj's, then?

Also, I don't really get what ''6w5 Sp/Sx'' means

Not all people look for a Dual. Many people want someone who is more like themselves. My point was, a lot of Se ego guys who are also Type 6 usually end up dating a fellow Se ego woman, in my experience. So, an LSI who wants another Se ego as a partner is no big deal and does not mean they are mistyped. It's like an Fi lead type dating a fellow Fi ego person. It happens quite often, more often than Duality actually.

6w5 Sp/Sx is an Enneagram combination.

Here you can read more about Self-preservation (=Sp) Sixes, here about Six in general, here about 6w5.

 

Self-pres/sexual

This type shares with the self-pres/social stacking the need to keep their environment in order. They also can appear One-like in that way. The differences revolve around the fact that they find their security more in their ability to attract a mate. They are concerned about how they are seen sexually. Their alliances to groups and authority can be quite conflicting. With the social instinct last in their stacking, this subtype can have a natural distrust of the social dynamic, especially when they fear it threatens their self-preservational concerns. The stance with regards to political or social concerns can vary wildly within this subtype. The self-pres is looking for safety and alliances with others, usually in a “going towards” fashion, but at the same time, the more assertive energy of the sexual instinct can manifest in a more counterphobic stance.


Their intimates are very important. Their issues with security are focused on their loved ones; their anxiety is closely tied to the pulse and feedback of the people closest to them. They are less outwardly fearful than the self-pres/social. While mainly phobic, their counterphobic nature shows in their sense of fun. They are drawn to intensity, and are likely to overcome fear in order to engage in adventures.(This is especially true with the Seven wing.)

[Myst]

@Number 9 large

- How would you type me?

Dunno. You seem to have access to ideas in a way that they seem real to you pretty well, overriding some more visceral instincts for you. Like your reasoning for brotherhood. I don't know if that necessarily means you are Intuitive though. Possible that you just didn't go out there in the real world and experience it and that's why you don't realize these ideas just don't work not simply because people are "too stupid". (Though I guess we could debate about this actually, interesting topic. ) Ti base (incl. LSI) can hold principles like that until they realize how they don't work. I did notice you mention the law of the jungle too at the same time. But again you mention it as "I understand it". How experiential is this understanding? If you truly feel/sense viscerally that it's natural then I'd exclude LII for you (Se PoLR just doesn't have the ability for that).

Your post in the crush thread seemed Fi HA to me, but I could be wrong about that. If it's really Fi HA (check this link out and see the Fi activating description there) then I'd say ILI for you. If you do have any negative misgivings about the jungle thing, I wouldn't exclude SLI either. But you seemed to have some Se seeking tbh (see my response to Cassandra below about that).

If the Fi HA doesn't actually fit (and if definitely not Se PoLR as above) and I misinterpret your seemingly being Se seeking then also keep considering LSI-Ti, check the Fe suggestive description (same link) as compared to Fi HA, maybe.

- Do you think socionics represents reality? Why, why not; partial reality?

Quite a few observational patterns as presented in socionics sources and a few general information processing principles (found elsewhere in academic cognitive psychology/cognitive science as well) are valid as far as our current understanding of the mind/brain goes. Other than these, most other principles of the function model called model A and other variations of the function model and extensions to them are not valid, this rendering the models themselves fundamentally invalid, and it's also remaining unproven whether everyone is even differentiated enough (Jungian term) to have a type. Don't try and use any of the function model principles to draw concrete conclusions is my suggestion. At all.

For example: if you type someone (or even yourself) as say, Fi lead, you cannot draw any concrete conclusions about their Fe or Te or other IEs as put in the function model. If you see this Fi lead later having a problem, it can be useful to check if it's some Te information type that they have a problem with and you can use that as a loose guide to check out directions for getting further information if needed but not as a concrete conclusion for anything whatsoever. At all. Again.

All in all, keeping in mind the issue of the invalid principles, type and the models in Socionics are just about trends, and some of them are not actually real trends either. So definitely do not try to use it like a scientific model if you like to do that otherwise with theories. Some of the trends are pretty real seeming though, and actually these have been observed by other research as well. And then the fundamental idea of type is what Socionics offers that other psychological models do not offer (especially not in academic psychology which neglects this topic) and this definitely has its uses, not a question about that. Type then, if someone has a type is a configuration of possibly measurable trends. In Socionics these trends should specifically be about information processing, not about personality traits, which is the other thing other theories, even typologies don't offer.

The use of Socionics then is to understand your cognitive (and to a degree, lower level instinctual) workings better, understand better how you come off to others as a consequence of those and using it as that very loose guide for some issues (intrapersonal and interpersonal) coupled with other methods - it will *not* work for much as a standalone method. For other approaches to use with it, there are a lot of psychological approaches, from the psychoanalytic (ew, personally, to most of it, lol) and the emotional experience focused ones to the cognitive. For some even spiritual approaches work (nonscientific but that's ok, science hardly investigated enough stuff so far for people's emotional-spiritual life).

I personally find Socionics's loose guiding works a bit better for intrapersonal issues than most interpersonal ones, which is ironic considering how intertype relations are the point of Socionics. Probably because there are more unknown factors initially present in an interpersonal issue, compared to intrapersonal ones (strictly my introtim POV, maybe). An interesting contradiction here (and not just my POV!) is how Jung's function model (Socionics takes from this) is in the context of an intrapersonal approach, the model's principles reflecting that and his model is incompatible with Socionics due to that.

Well so it's not too simple. Like the human mind/brain isn't either.

- What is the difference between ENTj-Ni and INTp-Te?

Both are ambiverts and both are Gamma NT, so that's a lot of similarity there. I personally find LIE-Ni still retains the Ej temperament qualities with Te driving them fundamentally and they "push out" some extra Ni to show others. ILI-Te is the other way around, retaining core Ip qualities and "pushing out" Te. Instead of Te driving them fundamentally (type trend!), they just "use" the Te approach strongly and show it to others.

So if I was to meet an ambivert who I know is Gamma NT, well, if this person has a quite noticeably (to me personally) reflective-contemplative vibe and is quite proactive, hard for him to sit still all the time, him actually liking to always keep a little active with something interspersed with some shorter periods of strongly noticeable (to me!) contemplative thinking where the contemplative vibe strengthens (a little of it is often "lingering around" by default too though), I would see them as LIE-Ni. Especially if they can get really engaged in talking with flashes of enthusiasm. They may not look enthusiastic at all by default, just stern or contemplative but they'll have these flashes of it alright when engaged. (Fe role, Ne demonstrative.) If the person instead is slightly more laid-back though still capable of talking a lot, especially about how to do things, analyzing that in quite a lot of detail, and never showing the strong flashes of enthusiasm, and especially if I (my Se ego pov) get the sense that I can easily initiate with them about something to do and they'll be decently laid-back and receptive to the idea, I'd think ILI-Te. I find LIE-Ni is a bit more resistant seeming by default, though of course they can also agree to ideas on what to do brought up.

To answer your questions: I do think that Socionics represents reality, or rather that it can describe the reality of people's personality types and "information metabolisms" rather well. I suppose to some extent it describes partial reality, simply because it only focuses on one aspect of the human psyche and personality. Other additions to "mapping out" the human personality are the Enneagram, Big 5, attachment style theory, and so forth.

I'd debate "rather well" but it depends on your expectations It does have some good things to it if removing the baggage.

Essentially, ENTj is Te lead and has 4D (aka strong) Demonstrative Ne, whereas INTp is Ni lead and has 4D (aka strong) Demonstrative Ti. ENTjs are more entrepreneurial/inventive/innovational or "implementalist" so to speak, whereas INTps are more theoretical/philosophical/analytical.

Eh both are gamma NT while quite balanced between Ni and Te, so they both can easily be entrepreneurial Te and philosophical Ni etc., and I find LIE-Ni is actually quite cautious and analytical compared to LIE-Te, and ILI-Te can actually flare up and a bit more fierce-rash sometimes.

Your preference in women sounds like Se valuing (which makes me rule out Si valuing for you). Someone might judge that preference as you being Se seeking, but I've known of Se ego types, especially xSI 6s, who prefer someone to be more Aggressor-like and assertive. Type 6s like strength in themselves and others, and most Se ego 6s I have known were with a fellow Se ego type. My guess is that the kind of women you are the most into are SEEs (or similar), but ESEs would be a better fit for you.

I dunno, I'm not a 6. I can be with another xSI in bed, sure (ESI at least tends to be fine) but I don't need someone being dominant in bed and the dominance Se lead displays in bed does go a bit beyond my preferences. I don't need that at all to not feel that I'm having sex with a corpse. I don't mind sex with Se base too much but it's not my preference. Then maybe guys are somehow different with this, god knows. I'm sure there are factors beyond Socionics for this. I'd say this is Se seeking for OP if this is something that consistently appears in his preferences in his entire life. If not then not.

Also I would never say what OP said here: "I don't like helpless women, I like strong individuals who know what they want and how they want it. This I truly adore."

Adore it? Strong wording lol. I respect Se egos having the same ability as me for knowing what they want and not being helpless instead, but adoring it? No, that's weird to me. It's more like some basic thing that's just good to have and btw with Se superid types I do respect their Se too when they do show they care about getting somewhere. It's Se PoLR that I can't respect if they get too whiny while not at all receptive to the approach of standing up and pushing to get where they want to get. Btw not saying all Se PoLRs are whiny!, but some of them definitely do that. So the only thing I agree with in that quote is not liking helpless people, yeah. Then idk if OP was just exaggerating with the wording. Again, see how consistent and overarching this preference is in OP's life.

P.S: A lot of LSIs I have known would mistype as INTx, especially the Ti subtype ones.

Not me, I always instinctually knew INTx was too detached-removed to fit me. But sure, LSI-Ti I could see doing so.

[Myst]

(Although I don't self-type in any consistent way at all at the moment, just play around occasionally and fight people when they say obviously wrong or troll-y things or things out of spite. I should minimize my contact with stereotypes until I'm back to normal energy levels since stereotypes are dangerous when you're broken down, see: cult brainwashing, even if it's not near that level.)

Stick to Ni lead at least. IMO

[Number 9 large]

@Number 9 large



Dunno. You seem to have access to ideas in a way that they seem real to you pretty well, overriding some more visceral instincts for you. Like your reasoning for brotherhood. I don't know if that necessarily means you are Intuitive though. Possible that you just didn't go out there in the real world and experience it and that's why you don't realize these ideas just don't work not simply because people are "too stupid". (Though I guess we could debate about this actually, interesting topic. ) Ti base (incl. LSI) can hold principles like that until they realize how they don't work. I did notice you mention the law of the jungle too at the same time. But again you mention it as "I understand it". How experiential is this understanding? If you truly feel/sense viscerally that it's natural then I'd exclude LII for you (Se PoLR just doesn't have the ability for that).

By brotherhood I really just mean live and let live, it's not that hard. Through peace we are able to argue on this forum right now. If we were at war, I'd be on the frontline killing other young men for no real reason but the greed of our masters. This is obviously stupid taking into account the grand scheme of humanity. But I understand the greed of politicians etc, so I get why it happens, but in the grand scheme it's fucking stupid to wage war when we, as a collective society/humanity can profit so much more from simply being at peace. It's not really about Fi or Fe, I think it's more Te kind of logic, it's simply more profitable to not be at war, that's what I mean.

Your post in the crush thread seemed Fi HA to me, but I could be wrong about that. If it's really Fi HA (check this link out and see the Fi activating description there) then I'd say ILI for you. If you do have any negative misgivings about the jungle thing, I wouldn't exclude SLI either. But you seemed to have some Se seeking tbh (see my response to Cassandra below about that).

If the Fi HA doesn't actually fit (and if definitely not Se PoLR as above) and I misinterpret your seemingly being Se seeking then also keep considering LSI-Ti, check the Fe suggestive description (same link) as compared to Fi HA, maybe.

''Fe as suggestive function in LSI (ISTj; Maxim Gorky) and LII (INTj; Robespierre) - tries to find a place where he is treated well by everybody. If someone expresses negative feelings towards him (for example, in a domestic fight his wife says, "I hate you"), then he takes this literally and tries to get out of there immediately and find another place where he is treated better. Therefore, they find it extremely difficult to be in places where they do not know how others are predisposed towards them. Appearance of someone who readily welcomes them is perceived as "the appearance of Christ to the people." Very suggestible when someone tells him about what relations exist between people. He likes positive emotions of other people, becomes as if charged up by them. Moves in overall direction of prevailing positive tone in emotions and avoids places with negative emotional charge. He does not like intrigue and gossip, feels uneasy in such situations since here he can easily fall victim and be put at a disadvantage. Therefore, he is critical of those who are not direct in communication, who speak in private and not openly, is suspicious of this. Relations between people should always be open, honest, and kind. What is said about one's relations should coincide with one's actions, and if not - then something is wrong. Saying that you love a person it should be demonstrated in action as well, and if your words are not visible - then they are not true. Very suspicious about predisposition of others towards him, suspects some kind of conspiracy. Even if suspicions are due to small detail, he either immediately tries to break off relations with a person or to exclude his or her from his inner circle, reducing contact with them to a minimum. Because of this he can considered a defector - if he finds people who treat him better he may ally with them, finding this a substantial enough argument to change sides. May fall victim to sycophancy.''

Agree with the red text very much, could be a quote from me. The blue text I'm unsure of but seems to be true most of the time, most people can never fully hide their emotions and intentions from me, I can see through people pretty well.


''Fi as activating function in SLI (ISTp; Jean Gabin) and ILI (INTp; Balzac) - it is important for him to relate to others around him, to feel good about them, to value and love someone. If they don't like someone, it also lowers their self-esteem. "I'm bad if I don't love anybody." They have two ways out of the situation, either way of a Buddhist - to admit that the world is not perfect and love it for what it is, or to imagine a perfect world and perfect people and love this, but in real life go on without strong feelings. All other options imply self-esteem problems, as in the case of idealization of people close to him, sooner or later he will have to deal with their shortcomings. De-idealization means very negative feelings and a drop of his self-esteem. They need to have opportunities to express their personal attitudes and judgements, talk about what they love, what they are doing. Idealization of the surrounding world is their main problem. It is important for them to have permission to express their attitude frankly. Therefore, they often choose living environment where they are received well, having contact only with it, because here with certainty they can disclose their thoughts. He likes to tell the truth and hopes that it will be perceived adequately, even if it is hurtful. He will say "but I have been honest". Tries to protect himself from any interference in his internal feelings. Often you can hear from him, "do look into my soul." Generally like to keep a distance from objects of adoration, since this way it is much easier to not be disappointed. Ideally, he should have an opportunity to periodically spend time away to himself. Can also invest his love into animals or even some kind of mystical entity; this way it is easier to maintain his self-esteem. In a long-term relationship with someone, sooner or later he becomes a moralist, since this is a good way to force someone to conform to his ideals. In passive self-defense will say that all people around him are bastards.''

I do tend to, as I said in the crush-topic, always have some object of love, even if that person is not even visibly in my life. I also tend to idealize that person, and stay away from it, as to not be disappointed. Even if that person seeks interaction with me, I may tend to even react annoyed, because it forces me to awake from my dreams.

''He likes to tell the truth and hopes that it will be perceived adequately, even if it is hurtful. He will say "but I have been honest".''

This could've been a quote from me lol. I try to live by this, and also appreciate it very much when others are simply honest with me, even if it means rejecting me or anything. I'd rather just be denied or rejected than lead on thinking I am still in grace with somebody. I also cannot stand being lied to, I will become infuriated if I discover people are lying to my face, it is litterally one of the worst things you can do to me.

In passive self-defense will say that all people around him are bastards.

Sometimes I am indeed disappointed in humanity in general, as most people are too simple-minded and ridiculous and stupid in their thought. If everybody were just smarter, this world would know so much less suffering.

Quite a few observational patterns as presented in socionics sources and a few general information processing principles (found elsewhere in academic cognitive psychology/cognitive science as well) are valid as far as our current understanding of the mind/brain goes. Other than these, most other principles of the function model called model A and other variations of the function model and extensions to them are not valid, this rendering the models themselves fundamentally invalid, and it's also remaining unproven whether everyone is even differentiated enough (Jungian term) to have a type. Don't try and use any of the function model principles to draw concrete conclusions is my suggestion. At all.

I've read that everyone's functions are more divided normally than binomially (as in socionics), which makes sense to me. I've studied psychology at university for 1,5 years, and we are always working with normally distributed samples. This means that there's not a lot of VERY extraverted people nor VERY introverted people. We're all more or less ambiverts, with only a few exceptions. The same goes then for feelers and thinkers, we can do both about equally well is the conclusion you can draw from that. This is actually a very valid argument against the socionics types and also the reason why I can identify with just about any type. Every discription contains simple general features that any human can possess, a little bit as if reading a horoscope, just a bit more complicated.

Also I would never say what OP said here: "I don't like helpless women, I like strong individuals who know what they want and how they want it. This I truly adore."

Adore it? Strong wording lol. I respect Se egos having the same ability as me for knowing what they want and not being helpless instead, but adoring it? No, that's weird to me. It's more like some basic thing that's just good to have and btw with Se superid types I do respect their Se too when they do show they care about getting somewhere. It's Se PoLR that I can't respect if they get too whiny while not at all receptive to the approach of standing up and pushing to get where they want to get. Btw not saying all Se PoLRs are whiny!, but some of them definitely do that. So the only thing I agree with in that quote is not liking helpless people, yeah. Then idk if OP was just exaggerating with the wording. Again, see how consistent and overarching this preference is in OP's life.


Not me, I always instinctually knew INTx was too detached-removed to fit me. But sure, LSI-Ti I could see doing so.

No, I think this is not very overly exaggerated at all, at least for me. I really hate it when a woman acts passive, or gives off ambiguous signs. I want directness, so there is no doubt about what I have to think of my relation to her. I just can't stand useless ambiguity, it truly irritates me.
If a person wants something, they should go get it right? Or at least show with confidence that they want it.
Then why act all ridiculous about it?
I only really approach women, or take a chance when I know I will succeed. I don't like taking meaningless risks, and being ambiguous shows that I can't decipher what you really think of me, or it just means that - that you don't know. In either case, it makes for a useless endeavour to try and court somebody like that. I don't like to waste my time.

[Myst]

By brotherhood I really just mean live and let live, it's not that hard. Through peace we are able to argue on this forum right now. If we were at war, I'd be on the frontline killing other young men for no real reason but the greed of our masters. This is obviously stupid taking into account the grand scheme of humanity. But I understand the greed of politicians etc, so I get why it happens, but in the grand scheme it's fucking stupid to wage war when we, as a collective society/humanity can profit so much more from simply being at peace. It's not really about Fi or Fe, I think it's more Te kind of logic, it's simply more profitable to not be at war, that's what I mean.

So to have humanity at peace, who has to give up what things and why? I'd like to hear your answer to this.

Agree with the red text very much, could be a quote from me. The blue text I'm unsure of but seems to be true most of the time, most people can never fully hide their emotions and intentions from me, I can see through people pretty well.

Well, LSI has big trouble with seeing intentions of other people (weak Fe DS and Ne PoLR together). Trouble with seeing emotions as well if they are not expressed in an obvious way (Fe superid in general is like this). If you don't relate to these issues, I'd suggest dropping the LSI-Ti typing.

I do tend to, as I said in the crush-topic, always have some object of love, even if that person is not even visibly in my life. I also tend to idealize that person, and stay away from it, as to not be disappointed. Even if that person seeks interaction with me, I may tend to even react annoyed, because it forces me to awake from my dreams.

Yes, that's why I thought of Fi HA for you when I read your posts there.

The thing with it lowering your self-esteem is pretty central to Fi HA. Otoh you didn't highlight the central things for Fe DS.

"He likes to tell the truth and hopes that it will be perceived adequately, even if it is hurtful. He will say "but I have been honest".''

This could've been a quote from me lol. I try to live by this, and also appreciate it very much when others are simply honest with me, even if it means rejecting me or anything. I'd rather just be denied or rejected than lead on thinking I am still in grace with somebody. I also cannot stand being lied to, I will become infuriated if I discover people are lying to my face, it is litterally one of the worst things you can do to me.

I totally understand you there and I relate. (This isn't very specific to Fi HA or even Fi valuing)

I've read that everyone's functions are more divided normally than binomially (as in socionics), which makes sense to me. I've studied psychology at university for 1,5 years, and we are always working with normally distributed samples. This means that there's not a lot of VERY extraverted people nor VERY introverted people. We're all more or less ambiverts, with only a few exceptions. The same goes then for feelers and thinkers, we can do both about equally well is the conclusion you can draw from that. This is actually a very valid argument against the socionics types and also the reason why I can identify with just about any type. Every discription contains simple general features that any human can possess, a little bit as if reading a horoscope, just a bit more complicated.

Er, where I was explaining that type is a collection of trends that means it does go beyond a horoscope. You cannot identify with all the 16 types to the exact same degree. The descriptions definitely contain more than generalities applicable to anyone.

As for the normal distribution, you exaggerated a bit. About two-thirds of people are not "very" anything. You can't really call one-third "a few exceptions", those people are definitely clear introverts and extraverts. But yes, standardized MBTI tests for function dichotomies will show the normal distribution, I suppose because what these tests measure are built up from many variables.

Btw same for Socionics of course, the general trends it tries to cover contain quite a few variables not at all accounted for by the Socionics function model even where the model tries to claim so by assuming principles for function positions, their interactions and whatnot. The model may try and include some of them under broad IE categories but that tactic does not ensure much explanatory power IMO. It's hardly a scientific approach to do that, either, lol.

Don't get me wrong, even just descriptive trends if they really are observable are useful to have. And I think Socionics does provide that. Some Socionics sources do also get into details on some very interesting and IMO valid mechanisms for some of the observed variables and so that's useful too but those are not really part of the core principles that I called invalid.

And heh, no I can't do equally well the Feeling and Thinking. Maybe you can, that's cool.

No, I think this is not very overly exaggerated at all, at least for me. I really hate it when a woman acts passive, or gives off ambiguous signs. I want directness, so there is no doubt about what I have to think of my relation to her. I just can't stand useless ambiguity, it truly irritates me.
If a person wants something, they should go get it right? Or at least show with confidence that they want it.
Then why act all ridiculous about it?
I only really approach women, or take a chance when I know I will succeed. I don't like taking meaningless risks, and being ambiguous shows that I can't decipher what you really think of me, or it just means that - that you don't know. In either case, it makes for a useless endeavour to try and court somebody like that. I don't like to waste my time.

OK well why not look up SEE and see if you can imagine that as your dual. Btw don't tell me you can see yourself as SEE as per your claim above

[squark]

ILI or IEI. I think I agree with hotelambush and would say IEI is more likely.

[Number 9 large]

So to have humanity at peace, who has to give up what things and why? I'd like to hear your answer to this.

The people in power have to give up individual gain for the collective gain. A.K.A get rid of corruption, basically. And get rid of stealing resources from other countries, such as the USA is doing rn in the middle east. Stuff like that. This will save a lot of suffering but most of all will enable growth of the human race as a whole, intellectually and scientifically, ultimately resulting in more happiness overall, rather than a couple of selfish politicians/countries grabbing whatever they can, leaving others naked so to speak. It's obvious the world is divided, as in not everyone has a fair chance of a good life, and that is not because there aren't sufficient resources or chances of it but because human greed is infinite and robbing it away from the weak. It really shouldn't be that hard to live and let live. It would be better for all, in the end. I mean wouldn't you rather have global peace than global war?

Well, LSI has big trouble with seeing intentions of other people (weak Fe DS and Ne PoLR together). Trouble with seeing emotions as well if they are not expressed in an obvious way (Fe superid in general is like this). If you don't relate to these issues, I'd suggest dropping the LSI-Ti typing.

I'm actually not really sure about this yet.

OK well why not look up SEE and see if you can imagine that as your dual.

Actually I've had a SEE as a friend with benefits for about 8 months now, and I can totally see her as my dual. Whenever I'm with her, we not only have great sex (lol), but we can also just talk about anything for a long time (including my deep insecurities), I can be completely frank with her, and she takes me seriously. I can totally relate with the duality discription and my relation to her, that's why I thought I might be ILI, and not LII, which I usually type as when taking a socionics test (and INTP in mbti). Of course it could also be that she is ESE, or something else entirely, but I highly doubt that she could be anything else than ESE or SEE, heavily leaning towards SEE lol.

Btw don't tell me you can see yourself as SEE as per your claim above

Wait I claimed I was a SEE? ? If there's anything I'm sure of it's that I'm not a feeling type.

[Myst]

The people in power have to give up individual gain for the collective gain. A.K.A get rid of corruption, basically. And get rid of stealing resources from other countries, such as the USA is doing rn in the middle east. Stuff like that. This will save a lot of suffering but most of all will enable growth of the human race as a whole, intellectually and scientifically, ultimately resulting in more happiness overall, rather than a couple of selfish politicians/countries grabbing whatever they can, leaving others naked so to speak. It's obvious the world is divided, as in not everyone has a fair chance of a good life, and that is not because there aren't sufficient resources or chances of it but because human greed is infinite and robbing it away from the weak. It really shouldn't be that hard to live and let live. It would be better for all, in the end. I mean wouldn't you rather have global peace than global war?

OK... nice utopia

I'm actually not really sure about this yet.

Might be a NF thing though ("most people can never fully hide their emotions and intentions from me, I can see through people pretty well").

Or just intuitive at least.

Actually I've had a SEE as a friend with benefits for about 8 months now, and I can totally see her as my dual. Whenever I'm with her, we not only have great sex (lol), but we can also just talk about anything for a long time (including my deep insecurities), I can be completely frank with her, and she takes me seriously. I can totally relate with the duality discription and my relation to her, that's why I thought I might be ILI, and not LII, which I usually type as when taking a socionics test (and INTP in mbti). Of course it could also be that she is ESE, or something else entirely, but I highly doubt that she could be anything else than ESE or SEE, heavily leaning towards SEE lol.

That's cool.

Wait I claimed I was a SEE? ? If there's anything I'm sure of it's that I'm not a feeling type.

You said: "I can identify with just about any type. Every discription contains simple general features that any human can possess"

[Number 9 large]

OK... nice utopia

It's not really a utopia. We are already on our way to this ''utopia''. I mean, we already have this life and let live attitude spread across large grounds (countries, even continents) and it's called society. So why would it be unrealistic for it to spread globally?

"I can identify with just about any type. Every discription contains simple general features that any human can possess"

Was just trying to stirr up debate, but you gotta agree to some degree.


Also, I think I am an ILI after all, I really notice that my conflictors are ESFj's, as my mother is one and we are literally always fighting. Everything she says rubs me the wrong way and vice versa. I also met one at work, and I'm pretty sure I'm the quasi-identical of her dual. She wants to smother me with her Fe but gets no response from me that way, and I want to trigger her Se by me trying to playfully insult her (using banter) but get no response from her that way (besides her getting mildly annoyed, hurt or just ignoring me).
But with SEE's, they actually do respond positively to me doing that.
So, I think I'm gonna change my description.

Also, @Cassandra, what do you think? You seemed to type me as LSI with quite some confidence (at least it seemed that way), so I wanna hear ur opinion, because you seemed to type me as an obvious beta.

[Olimpia]

Also, I think I am an ILI after all, I really notice that my conflictors are ESFj's, as my mother is one and we are literally always fighting. Everything she says rubs me the wrong way and vice versa. I also met one at work, and I'm pretty sure I'm the quasi-identical of her dual. She wants to smother me with her Fe but gets no response from me that way, and I want to trigger her Se by me trying to playfully insult her (using banter) but get no response from her that way (besides her getting mildly annoyed, hurt or just ignoring me).
But with SEE's, they actually do respond positively to me doing that.
So, I think I'm gonna change my description.

Also, @Cassandra, what do you think? You seemed to type me as LSI with quite some confidence (at least it seemed that way), so I wanna hear ur opinion, because you seemed to type me as an obvious beta.

Well... my opinion hasn't changed.

I don't know whether the people you have typed are actually ESFj or not, and if they were, your issues with them might have to do with the fact you want some Se (valuing) from them, which they don't have. I did say that you V.I as LSI-Se opposed to LSI-Ti... LSI-Se is more Se-focused. And in your questionnaire you did let on that you are the most attracted to SEEs. But that doesn't mean that your Dual must be SEE. Duality is just about what kind of type would technically be the best fit for you in a purely harmonic sense. That doesn't mean that you'll find your Dual the most attractive. I don't find SLEs the most attractive myself, but I am still pretty sure they are my Dual based on the theory itself. I tend to find SEEs (and even the occasional ESE) more attractive, too. Duality does not really describe real-life attraction patterns. I've written more about it here... (if you don't wanna read the whole thing, just skip to the Imago part.)

Anyhow, if you type yourself as ILI, so be it. Just know that my impression of you and your type has not changed.

[Number 9 large]

Well... my opinion hasn't changed.

I don't know whether the people you have typed are actually ESFj or not, and if they were, your issues with them might have to do with the fact you want some Se (valuing) from them, which they don't have. I did say that you V.I as LSI-Se opposed to LSI-Ti... LSI-Se is more Se-focused. And in your questionnaire you did let on that you are the most attracted to SEEs. But that doesn't mean that your Dual must be SEE. Duality is just about what kind of type would technically be the best fit for you in a purely harmonic sense. That doesn't mean that you'll find your Dual the most attractive. I don't find SLEs the most attractive myself, but I am still pretty sure they are my Dual based on the theory itself. I tend to find SEEs (and even the occasional ESE) more attractive, too. Duality does not really describe real-life attraction patterns. I've written more about it here... (if you don't wanna read the whole thing, just skip to the Imago part.)

Anyhow, if you type yourself as ILI, so be it. Just know that my impression of you and your type has not changed.

But if I'm LSI-Se, why would I value Se from other people? Wouldn't I value Ni, then? Because I'm pretty sure I'm bored out of my mind of people who exhibit Ni (at least in romantic sense), because they're so introvert, silent, basically coming across as boring.
I mean, that's basically what I am already, so I look for the opposite.
I read in ur article that ''Imago'' is usually based on people in your life you're used to interacting with, such as your mom or dad.
It so happens though, that nobody in my close family is Se based. (dad is LSE and mom ESE, while sister is either IEI or EII), so that can't be the case. I really think (based on my experiences with SEE's and ESE's) that SEE is my dual (or at least ESE conflicting, and at the very least not semi-duality, which would be the case if I was LSI, because of the constant conflict with my mom).

So that basically leaves ILI for me as an option, as the discription of it resonates with me the most.
I think I will put up a video of myself soon answering the same questionaire, so you can see my general demeanor.
It's not just because I work out 5 times a week that I must be an LSI, or that because I am ''convinced of my statements'' that I must be an LSI. My statements are subjective to change if somebody can tackle them with good arguments.

One of the reasons I actually did start doing it is because of my victim romance style (which I am pretty sure I exhibit).
I don't like taking initiative, being assertive sexually, although I may seem like it, or act like it.
I actually like it more when girls show initiative and interest in me, because I'm unsure in that area and rather have someone come to me, that way I know for sure if somebody likes me.

Unfortunately this style is not expected via social roles. Men are supposed to be the aggressor, and that's just not me. Whenever I do approach somebody in such a way I feel as if I'm intruding somebody's personal space/bothering them with an otherwise unobtrusive personality. But I do like it when it happens to myself by someone else.
This is why I started working out, so I would look more attractive, therefore increasing my chances of girls coming up to me, without me having to go up to them (also because it's healthy, good for my confidence etc..)

Some examples of romance styles, according to this site, by type:

Psuedo-Aggressors/Employees: LIE (ENTj) ILI (INTp)

These are types who exhibit aggressive tendencies in their everyday life, and as a result tend to carry over these notions and temperaments into their romantic life. They typically are not comfortable with connotations of the word "victim" - implying a certain weakness, effeteness, and lack of dignity. In searching for a partner, they are looking for a worthy opponent - someone who is strong enough to withstand their quirks without "breaking" so to speak.

''they are looking for a worthy opponent - someone who is strong enough to withstand their quirks without "breaking" so to speak. - this is basically my philosophy on dating. I have yet to find a girl that can withstand my constructive criticism and teasing and that can play along with it.

Conquerors: SLE (ESTp) LSI (ISTj)

These are assertive types who do not flinch at their own sexuality. They will express their own desire without reservation. They are won over by direct shows of submission (only after feeling that they have earned it). He will be insulted if his romantic interest gives him his title without question, and bored if the fight is too easily won. He, like the Pseudo-Aggressor and the Challenger, is questing to find his equal. Someone he can play his almost sadistic games with without "breaking."

''They will express their own desire without reservation.''- Never actually done this, unless really drunk and in the club dancing, and only after having received eye-contact in a favourable way. Most of the time I don't try to make clear that I like someone, because it gives away the ''challenge'' from the aggressor pursuing me, I like to be chased around a bit, only giving in after they deserve it, because I know that if I give in too quickly, I become boring and too easily conquered.

Sooo yea I'm just gonna change it. Probably know myself better than you do, I'm just interested in what you have to say, or anybody for that matter, cuz you know, I just wanna know the truth.

[Olimpia]

Well, I am wondering how you are relating to and specifically?
Do you see yourself exhibiting in a Creative manner? Do you exhibit HA behaviour or strivings?

The valuing aspect has become obvious. Besides, introverts in Socionics are supposed to prefer being approached in general. Introverted Aggressors are special in that case. ESI men are not really "aggressive" when interacting with potential love interests, and not all LSI men are either – at least in the beginning of a relationship.

Anyhow, relating to a type description and actually relating to the Informations Elements can be two different things.
I just don't see any signs of you having Creative and HA.

P.S: I am getting the impression you "want" to be ILI because of the kind of women you like (aka SEEs), and that could skew your self-typing.

[squark]

Sooo yea I'm just gonna change it. Probably know myself better than you do.

Indeed. You probably do.

[Number 9 large]

Well, I am wondering how you are relating to and specifically?
Do you see yourself exhibiting in a Creative manner? Do you exhibit HA behaviour or strivings?

I think I've said before somewhere on this forum that yes, I do tend to always have a person I am 'in love' with, or at least obsessed with, idealize or am infatuated by. I don't know why this is or if this is normal (it think it might be, but...), so that might be Fi HA.

As for Te;

Sociotype.com says this about Te in general as a function and as a creative function, idk if it's accurate so bear with me:

''Since Te perceives objective, factual information outside the subject (external activity) and analyzes the rationale and functionality of what is happening or being done or said. "Quality" to a Te type is how well an object performs the functions for which it was made. A Te type can judge a person to be "effective" if he is able to achieve his purposes without wasting any energy or producing unwanted side effects. So Te types basically evaluate people and things using the same criteria.''

Te as Creative Function

It is manifested as a preference for factual accuracy over ideological consistency, and for objective, "harsh" communication over careful words that avoid a negative atmosphere. A view of the external environment being efficient, reasonable, and making sense is essential to their well-being and sense of inner peace, but they do not feel a pressing need for being proactive or productive themselves in that area.- See more at: http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/i....hJr0UB0D.dpuf

This seems pretty spot on, actually, especially the not that proactive part. I am a pretty passive person. Resistant to fast lifestyle changes (such as changing jobs or just diving into the deep, not knowing what to expect), I think that's why I like SEEs so much, cuz they're the opposite therefore could bring fun into my life, cuz I like never want to try new things/ throw myself on thin ice, even though I know it's part of life and going forward/becoming a stronger version of yourself.

Then again, I also see myself a lot in the discriptions of Ti, Ni lead but also Ni vulnerable. This is the problem I've got with socionics, when I read a discription of a type or function, I can immediately think of an example of situations I've been in that resemble me to that type or function. I mean even the Fe discription in red resonates with me completely.

Extroverted ethics is an extroverted, rational, and dynamic information element. It is also called Fe, E, the ethics of emotions, or black ethics. Fe is generally associated with the ability to recognize and convey (i.e. make others experience) passions, moods, and emotional states, generate excitement, liveliness, and feelings, get emotionally involved in activities and emotionally involve others, recognize and describe emotional interaction between people and groups, and build a sense of community and emotional unity.Types that value Fe like creating a visible atmosphere of camaraderie with other people. They enjoy a loose atmosphere where anything goes, where people don't have to watch too carefully what they say for fear of offending others. This means these types try not to be too thin-skinned, taking jokes with a grain of salt. However, they are very conscious of the fact that the way something is said is very important to how it will be received, so they tend to add emphasis, embellishments, and exaggerations here and there to keep people engaged. The best way to say something is highly dependent on the situation and the implied purpose of the exchange, so of course levity is not appropriate in some situations.Even after explosive arguments, these types find it hard to hold grudges, and can tolerate people they in principle don't like, as long as the situation is primarily social and doesn't require too close contact. They prefer misgivings to be out in the open; they believe that the silent treatment is one of the worst things you can do to a person, and only aggravates the underlying problem.

This is probably then because these discriptions are way too general and are not really specific or falsifiable.
So how then are we able to presume types if all these ''functions'' are really just common sense (as in really common in basically everybody), and really are applicable to a really wide variety of people? At least to me, these discriptions are all so general that basically anybody can identify with them.

Besides, introverts in Socionics are supposed to prefer being approached in general. Introverted Aggressors are special in that case. ESI men are not really "aggressive" when interacting with potential love interests, and not all LSI men are either

Then why are they called agressors? On this website, LSIs are even called ''conquerors'', who try to ''hunt down'' their ''prey''.
See link below on erotic attitudes of all types:
( http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...otic-Attitudes )
It says they get bored when the victim ''surrenders'' to their advances too easily, they want a challenge.
You called me an LSI, so that's another reason why I doubt that.

This is totally not me, because I fucking hate rejection.

Anyhow, relating to a type description and actually relating to the Informations Elements can be two different things.

True, but I got the same problem when trying to relate to Functions, because they all are really general.
Even the introverted sensing part resonates with me, and I'm pretty sure that if socionics is even a real thing, this function would be my least valued, both in others and myself. The blue text is me commenting on the discription of sociotype on introverted sensing in general:

''Types that value Si prefer to spend their time doing enjoyable activities rather than straining themselves to achieve goals
There are people who would rather work than do fun stuff all the time? Ok, never met them

They like to believe that if activities are done with enjoyment, people will give them more effort and time, and also becoming more skilled at what they are doing in the long run.
This is common sense, doesn't take a Si lead or creative to agree with this

They believe that goals should suit people's intrinsic needs rather than shaped by the demands and constraints of the external world, and so do not try to force others into doing things they don't want to do.
This one is the only one that I might see some people disagree over, so ok I'll take it.

They also try to be easygoing and pleasant, preferring peaceful coexistence to conflict, except when their personal well-being or comfort is directly at stake.''
This is also really general; I mean who really likes to have conflicts all the time? Nobody. Except when your personal well-being is at stake; then, obviously there's gonna be conflict...
Also applicable to 99% of the population.

I just don't see any signs of you having Creative

Well I do when I read the discription of it

and HA.

HA means that you secretely want somebody to love. Doesn't everybody want somebody to love?
Isn't life without love kind of meaningless?

So you, as an IEE, don't want to love somebody, to be in a relationship, because you don't have HA according to this theory?
Again, this seems all very generalisable really is applicable to anybody, not just ~2/16th (ISTp and INTp) of the general population.

P.S: I am getting the impression you "want" to be ILI because of the kind of women you like (aka SEEs), and that could skew your self-typing.

Yea that could be true, then again, why would I get along with them so easily and naturally if it weren't for them being my dual (could also be activity or whatever but still)


On a sidenote:

The more I logically analyze socionics, the more I realise that it doesn't really hold up to be true, and it keeps getting more ridiculous really. It is really sad, because I want it to be true, because then life and people would be so easy to decipher, using only 16 types and 8 functions.

I get the same feeling I got when I realized that my religion simply wasn't coinciding with reality. And I stepped out of it, because of it, because once I see logical inconsistencies, it just basically ends, for me at least.

Also @Cassandra sorry for the late reply, I didn't get a notification for your reply (for some reason I thought I would but... I didn't so yea whatever)

Anyway what do you think? As an expert on socionics, or at least somebody who's been actively involved in it for years and seems to type people with high confidence and seemingly good reasoning, what do you think of these findings of me in this post?

I'm also asking this question to anybody who read this and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Because if we really want to know if socionics is true we gotta try to falsify it, not engage in confirmation bias by looking for real example and thinking yea, that resonates with me, because anything can resonate with you as I proved in this post.
I think the Forer effect is majorly the thing that people fall over regarding socionics but also astrology or horoscopes for that matter. Just because socionics seems more scientific doesn't make it more scientific.
It's still not a science (because the premises are ungrounded, therefore untestable, therefore unfalsifiable, but even if we allow ourself to believe that the existence of the 8 functions are true, then my post seems to blur the line between them pretty well.

Just because something is logically consistent within itself doesn't mean that it is logically consistent with reality, and the latter makes something true or not, not the first.

So yea, prove me wrong. Pretty please

[Myst]

It's not really a utopia. We are already on our way to this ''utopia''. I mean, we already have this life and let live attitude spread across large grounds (countries, even continents) and it's called society. So why would it be unrealistic for it to spread globally?

Society != live and let live.

Was just trying to stirr up debate, but you gotta agree to some degree.

Don't agree. The descriptions are specific enough to be not subject to Forer that much.

I think I've said before somewhere on this forum that yes, I do tend to always have a person I am 'in love' with, or at least obsessed with, idealize or am infatuated by. I don't know why this is or if this is normal (it think it might be, but...), so that might be Fi HA.

I don't know, it might be you being a NF type, too.

This seems pretty spot on, actually, especially the not that proactive part. I am a pretty passive person. Resistant to fast lifestyle changes (such as changing jobs or just diving into the deep, not knowing what to expect), I think that's why I like SEEs so much, cuz they're the opposite therefore could bring fun into my life, cuz I like never want to try new things/ throw myself on thin ice, even though I know it's part of life and going forward/becoming a stronger version of yourself.

Then again, I also see myself a lot in the discriptions of Ti, Ni lead but also Ni vulnerable. This is the problem I've got with socionics, when I read a discription of a type or function, I can immediately think of an example of situations I've been in that resemble me to that type or function. I mean even the Fe discription in red resonates with me completely.

Oh yeah if all that red stuff works for you you might just be IEI actually.

This is probably then because these discriptions are way too general and are not really specific or falsifiable.
So how then are we able to presume types if all these ''functions'' are really just common sense (as in really common in basically everybody), and really are applicable to a really wide variety of people? At least to me, these discriptions are all so general that basically anybody can identify with them.

You seem a bit stuck in some Ti ideas that gives me a Te PoLR taste (in your entire post overall). Subjective impression tho'. Could still be Te ignoring (LSI)

"They like to believe that if activities are done with enjoyment, people will give them more effort and time, and also becoming more skilled at what they are doing in the long run."
This is common sense, doesn't take a Si lead or creative to agree with this

My worldview is not like this, actually. Enjoyment is not the sole main priority for me, and the idea that just purely because something is enjoyable, I'd give it more time... no, this is too aimless.

"They also try to be easygoing and pleasant, preferring peaceful coexistence to conflict, except when their personal well-being or comfort is directly at stake.''

This is also really general; I mean who really likes to have conflicts all the time? Nobody. Except when your personal well-being is at stake; then, obviously there's gonna be conflict...
Also applicable to 99% of the population.

I will do conflict in cases where it's not my personal well-being or comfort is directly at stake. I'm not the only one with that.

On a sidenote:

The more I logically analyze socionics, the more I realise that it doesn't really hold up to be true, and it keeps getting more ridiculous really. It is really sad, because I want it to be true, because then life and people would be so easy to decipher, using only 16 types and 8 functions.

Actually no, best to view socionics model is just as a collection of trends. Not as a model with valid logical rules.

Paying attention to these trends that socionics points out is useful though.

I get the same feeling I got when I realized that my religion simply wasn't coinciding with reality. And I stepped out of it, because of it, because once I see logical inconsistencies, it just basically ends, for me at least.

High fiving this

Because if we really want to know if socionics is true we gotta try to falsify it, not engage in confirmation bias by looking for real example and thinking yea, that resonates with me, because anything can resonate with you as I proved in this post.

You didn't prove it - this claim is not true anyway that anything can resonate with you.

I do agree socionics model should be operationalized to work with it properly - not gonna happen though. Just view it as descriptive trends about some people really, no more.

I think the Forer effect is majorly the thing that people fall over regarding socionics but also astrology or horoscopes for that matter. Just because socionics seems more scientific doesn't make it more scientific.

No, it's not the Forer effect. True though that the model invites some people to use it in a way too flexible way. It can help some people find patterns or notice things or whatever though. It helped me notice some things that were useful to me. It's however quite far from an efficient method, in my experience. Better than nothing though and I had nothing else available.

Just because something is logically consistent within itself doesn't mean that it is logically consistent with reality, and the latter makes something true or not, not the first.

*Pats your TiSe*

[squark]

If you're trying to decide between Te and Ti, I highly recommend reading the Te/Ti section of the first post in this thread: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-Demonstrative

It's descriptive, accurate and should be helpful. As long as you don't confuse confidence for competence you can find good information. That section in particular was written primarily by a Ti-lead who I've found to usually have very clear and informative posts with a solid understanding. (The other sections were written by a Te-lead who is also often informative)

[Slade]

People are typing you as LSI? Are they reading the same questionnaire I'm reading?

11. What have people seen as your weaknesses? What do you dislike about yourself?

I dislike that I am different, while at the same time cherishing it.

I would not like to be more stupid just so I can fit in, although I am interested in what it would feel like to be fitting in.

What people see as my weakness is never ending doubts, indecision. My weakness is endless pondering over situations and usually social obligations, which I then usually, after a couple of nights bad sleep, blow off, usually regretting it later, but it's the only way to stop the never ending doubt and fear that bugs my mind at times.

If you've read through all this bullshit, congratulations. I have a couple of questions for you.

- How would you type me?
- Do you think socionics represents reality? Why, why not; partial reality?
- What is the difference between ENTj-Ni and INTp-Te?

Thanks for reading.

The bolded almost surely points away from Se ego, at the very least it casts serious doubts on that typing. Now to answer your questions.

1. IP, Ni ego is as far as I can comfortably go. This post echoes a lot of stereotypical Ni Ego thoughts, feeling like an alien, misunderstood, born in the wrong time period, etc. Themes of passivity, liking directness from others, more signs of IP and possibly Se valuing.

Overall, I got a strong impression of a victim type. You seem like the kind of person who whines and complains if something doesn't go their way rather than be proactive about it, defeatist, which I guess is my way of saying I don't see the Se here. It seems, rather, that you "need" or a better word might be benefit from a kick in the ass. I detected a little bit of self loathing, mixed with arrogance, which when together give me the impression of fragility. This particular impression, to me, is a trademark of victims.

2. Yes it does, but you have to understand what you are looking at before it does. It's too early in your understanding before you can make a call that it doesn't work in reality. Learn what the functions do and are at their core first before you decide it's bullshit.

Also, in my opinion, you are approaching the theory wrong. It's not about being perfectly logically consistent, at least not to me. What matters is whether or not it works practically. It doesn't need to be perfectly logically sound in order for it to work or be useful. It provides a framework for interactions that can help you deal with people, especially if you are someone who is more clueless in that area.

It's premises are simple: no one is good at everything, there is a trade-off of strengths and weaknesses in an individual in the form of perceptual preferences, these remain constant over time.

On a very simple level, it's just asserting things I already knew. I never needed Socionics to tell me that some people perceive things more naturally through logic, others through ethics, etc. These are easily observable to me. It's just labeling natural phenomena and saying that opposites complement each other. Whether or not it 'strictly' makes sense is irrelevant. It can be tweaked for practical purposes.

Also, on descriptions, they are meant to be composites so they will be general by nature which is likely why you are experiencing forer effect. You need to look at what each information element is at it's core, and from there you can develop how it works in the psyche and with different types.


3. The difference is an ENTJ has better shit to do then think about the things you posted about. It's a half-joke, but seriously, I don't see any indicators for ENTJ that would make this worth debating. I'm not immediately seeing Te subtype either for ILI. Ni subtype is most likely if ILI.


Other thoughts: Reading this I jumped to Enneagram 5, though I suppose this could fit 4 as well. I placed it as 5, because among other things, you seem to put great stock into your intellect and the post generally seemed more cerebral than emotional.

[Olimpia]

The way you went through all of the information and dissected it as you did is rather typical of a Logical type, @Number 9 large.

Usually, being plagued with doubts and wanting to find security ( valuing types usually seek it out in some kind of system) is a Type 6 problem and not related to any particular IE. Apparently some people associate that with , but that is not what is truly about. is about time and an abstract perception of the world; think of how Plato saw objects containing "ideas" – this is very .

A lot of people in this world are doubtful or indecisive, and they are all supposed to be lead? Not really. A lot of people are 6s. I know that for a newbie or even advanced people, there can be the difficulty to discern Sociotype from Enneagram type, but the differences have to be considered.

I do tend to always have a person I am 'in love' with, or at least obsessed with, idealize or am infatuated by.

Another Enneagram motivation vs IE issue. No, as far as I understand it, this is not Fi HA in particular; this is simply being either SX first or second.

A good rule of thumb to distinguish whether something is IE related or Enneagram related: Could other (potentially very different) sociotypes go through the same thing or feel the same way about something? In this case, again, plenty of non-Ni lead or non-Fi HA people always have someone they are obsessed or infatuated with. And those people are usually SX first, sometimes second. And there are SX blindspot ILIs (and other types) who don't feel that way much at all.

But I get it, the problem with the HAs is the fact there is not enough information about them out there, and the information that is there is very vague and too open to interpretation for some people. I see HA as being related to wanting to develop your , and finding ways to express yours better. This can go by wanting to "love" (or despise, for that matter) certain things in this world; but it is not necessarily as closely related to romance itself as it sounds like.

This is totally not me, because I fucking hate rejection.

Who likes rejection? I don't know anyone who does. (Except for some women who have a thing for jerks, maybe.)

Even the introverted sensing part resonates with me, and I'm pretty sure that if socionics is even a real thing, this function would be my least valued, both in others and myself.

Yes, you do not value it, but having very strong as an LSI, you'd be able to relate to some of the Si (lead) description aspects. The way you critique the lead descriptions sounds pretty much like Demonstrative to me, from a valuing perspective. And you do relate to , otherwise you wouldn't have bolded entire sections of it.

Anyhow, I still see an LSI Type 6 finding difficulties with fully embracing the theory because of general doubts, and maybe a lack of clear information in some parts. And it is not helping that you like SEEs (assuming they are typed correctly) so much. It makes you believe that they must be your Duals. SX problems.

[squark]

People are typing you as LSI? Are they reading the same questionnaire I'm reading?
. . .
Other thoughts: Reading this I jumped to Enneagram 5, though I suppose this could fit 4 as well. I placed it as 5, because among other things, you seem to put great stock into your intellect and the post generally seemed more cerebral than emotional.

I thought all the alienation stuff fit 4. Though 4w5 or 5w4 both seem quite possible. At any rate the entire questionnaire screamed "I'm INxp!" There's really no way to get Se-creative from what he wrote without a lot of twisty convoluted mental gymnastics and justifications.

[squark]

Just because something is logically consistent within itself doesn't mean that it is logically consistent with reality, and the latter makes something true or not, not the first.

This is interesting because a Ti-lead when presented with evidence will often say, "But does it make sense?" In other words, evidence isn't enough, it has to hold together in a coherent way. So, for them, it's not true unless it is logically consistent within itself, even with evidence.

They still care about reality, but the primary concern for a Ti-base is still always "Does this make sense according to my understanding of reality, and does it hold together, is it a rational explanation?" In other words, they operate in the opposite direction of what you've said here - to be true, it first must make rational sense to them.

Various type descriptions talking about this:

Function #1 – subjective logic (Ti): my understanding, my worldview, and my school. A Maxim's motto is: “I understand the world, therefore I exist”. It is impossible to make them change their mind. The world is the way I understand it. Their understanding is very conservative, crystallized. When attacked in the area of the first function, a Maxim becomes aggressive. In the area of the first function a person is confident of himself and leans on his own authority. In case of a Maxim this is their 'school', their view of the world, their ideas about the world. “I know how the world was made, who will teach me about heights and the depths. What evidence do you have to show for? I will explain away all your evidence!” If a Maxim runs into indisputable evidence which he can neither explain nor ignore, he (similar to a Robespierre) needs time to fill up the gaps in their belief system, to improve their world view making it complete and consistent from their point of view. He likes to analyze new data and draw independent conclusions, accepting or rejecting certain things.
Function #-1 – objective logic (Te): the world is the way I see it, everything else I ignore. Real circumstances can be perceived simply as annoying obstacles.

1 function "Good" - subjective logic. "I know all the best!"
It is very affectionate to his understanding of anything, his thinking, his logic, concepts, confident and conservative in this, convince impossible to "live" this does not necessarily sharing it with others. If you do not converge with the facts, sometimes even "the worse for the facts." Trying to criticize it causes irritation in it. Is able to reason logically, but does not like to defend his vision of the situation: "Who knew - he knew the rest is not given", so often surrounds himself with the concept of "my school" - those who accept his logic judgment and will not go to criticize. It is very hard for a long time changing its logical conclusions: Time needed for error judgment. He likes to get away with the way he understands it. If this can not be achieved - there is irritation. Therefore, they can only persuade weighty arguments, and the new information it receives is often skeptical, if he is not sure of this: you need to all carefully weighed before saying "yes." His thinking is fundamental, thorough, something that can be "lean" in which case, so there should be no risk of them and difficult to demand that someone's thoughts instantly approves. In general, try to understand everything first, and only then take for yourself. If something can not understand the development of the material it is more difficult because it is difficult to accept for themselves. So often is a very long time to learn something before you use, even if the question is very simple. The first function of the third: meaning that all the terms of his understanding right and principled, consistent in this his vision. If it turns out that this is not the case, then there is a "double blow" to himself.

In other words, you're quite right that you are not Ti-lead. You also seem to be IP temperament. I have difficulty disassociating nihilism from Ni-lead because it's just so common in especially INTps even though other types can also be nihilists. I'm ignoring that part of your questionnaire so as to prevent bias in myself, and still IP and victim stands out above everything else. (The poking for a reaction - seeing if people can banter back is very typical victim behavior) So, no, I won't be proving your self-assessments wrong, as I only see evidence backing them up.

[Number 9 large]

Society != live and let live.

It pretty much is. If you got a better discription tell me, but don't tell me that society isn't based upon the premise of ''live and let live''.

Don't agree. The descriptions are specific enough to be not subject to Forer that much.

Okay

I don't know, it might be you being a NF type, too.

I'm pretty sure I'm a logical type, if anything. Also pretty sure I'm intuitive. E/I and P/J are more debatable, I think.

Oh yeah if all that red stuff works for you you might just be IEI actually.

So it doesn't work for you then?

You seem a bit stuck in some Ti ideas that gives me a Te PoLR taste (in your entire post overall). Subjective impression tho'. Could still be Te ignoring (LSI)

How exactly am I stuck in some ideas? Which ones, and why?

My worldview is not like this, actually. Enjoyment is not the sole main priority for me, and the idea that just purely because something is enjoyable, I'd give it more time... no, this is too aimless.

But I'm pretty sure that if you absolutely hate your job, you're gonna not be doing that for the rest of your life. A.k.a your perception of fun is one of the factors of your choices, as is said in the discription of Si. It doesn't say that enjoyment is the only drive of Si people.

I will do conflict in cases where it's not my personal well-being or comfort is directly at stake. I'm not the only one with that.

Alright, fair enough.

Actually no, best to view socionics model is just as a collection of trends. Not as a model with valid logical rules.

But how do we know if these trends are based on the truth? By falsifying, or by engaging in confirmation bias?

High fiving this

Amen, brother

You didn't prove it - this claim is not true anyway that anything can resonate with you.

That's not really what I am saying. I am saying that most of these function discriptions are so general that they can apply to way more people than 2/16th of them as socionics claims, if we, for the sake of my point allow ourselves to believe that each type is equally distributed over the world population.

No, it's not the Forer effect. True though that the model invites some people to use it in a way too flexible way. It can help some people find patterns or notice things or whatever though. It helped me notice some things that were useful to me. It's however quite far from an efficient method, in my experience. Better than nothing though and I had nothing else available.

So you didn't have trouble typing yourself in the past?
Because with me a lot of these function discriptions are so general (or at least I thought they were, apparently you guys are very keen in distinguishing the discriptions of functions per position on the functional stack) that I can identify parts of myself in a lot of them.
That's why I have so much trouble typing myself.

*Pats your TiSe*

I'm still waiting for your argument of me being Se creative. I don't see it honestly. Ti I can see myself in.