And again Remind me, what's up with you regarding type now?
Right, your frames of references and angles...It seemed appropriate. I'm developing a new frame of reference in terms of how I see myself. Self concepts have more fragility than people usually recognize. I understand where Jim's coming from to an extent, but I think it's kind of tangential here. Generally, I'm entering a new phase of life.
Too much emotion results in a straightjacket?Good. I prefer going through life straightjacket-free.
Right. My issue is just this, if you just have those general principles, how do you know how to apply them in in a specific way in a specific situation unless you have identified the other parts of the system? Without that, you would have to make logical jumps and do it in a very speculative and arbitrary way, until you somehow arrive to a solution. Or you would have to just work with the facts in a very trial and error way while keeping only the general direction in mind (based on your general principles) until a solution is hit upon.I'm riffing off of Jung's description of Ti. His conceptualization technically differs from Socionics to an extent, but you can see how the developers of Socionics borrowed most of the defining features from Jung. According to Jung, Ti tends to be reductionistic because it prioritizes subjective factors over objective factors. So, you get a subjective idea or a system that primarily interfaces with facts to affirm itself, rather than the other way around.
But, if you're curious, I prefer basing as many of my decisions on facts as I can.
I think that if you don't understand the complexities of a system in depth, you run the risk of paralysis through analysis. Overthinking. So, whether your system is simple or complex, you should get a handle on the underlying principles.
If you can describe what you actually do, any of these two approaches or something else, I'd be interested in hearing about this. I do remember you said you generate possible options that just come up for you and then work through them verifying them. Is that part of this somehow?
You mean, without the general principles, it'd be too detail-oriented analysis for your taste? Seeing trees but not the forest?I think that if you don't understand the complexities of a system in depth, you run the risk of paralysis through analysis. Overthinking.
I'm more like, I arrive to the forest from the trees. So I see both, actually but some people don't seem to realize how this works.
Well alright, there's just a difference between a negligibly small chance for something bad and a higher, less negligible chance for something bad (to me that's what risk is). But yeah, life doesn't happen without some chances for bad outcomes.I mean that organizations have to accept risk in order to get from point A. to point B. For example, if you run a cloud storage business, you have to invest in assets that run the risk of premature failure. You could pour all your money into a server room that becomes swallowed up by an earthquake the next day. This rule applies to other organizations as well. If you work for a non profit organization that does a lot of boots-on-the-ground outreach to random people, you run the risk of sending a team member out who randomly gets stabbed to death.
Life, in general, doesn't happen without risk involved.
Lol you were pretty logical early on, yeah, pretty objective and impartial. I was brought up religious too and I only quit it at the age of 18. Until then I just tried to follow it, I wasn't doing any critical examination of the beliefs yet, even though I was not able to simply accept the teachings either. I had a perception of how "this doesn't make sense so far but I need to make sense of it". I was just going with the tradition of the family and identifying by it and trying to orient by it a lot. I suppose it was my Fe seeking. But I was just struggling with actually feeling the beliefs. So, I could identify with trying to follow the religion but I couldn't actually orient by it if that makes sense. I couldn't put it all together in my head in a way to be able to do that. Until one day I finally figured out what was wrong with all of it anyway. Felt great with that finally. (Not to offend any religious people here.)I couldn't tell you, lol. My memory probably isn't as good as yours. One memory that comes to mind is of when I was very little and my family took me to church. They told me that god was omnipotent. So, I thought that if god was omnipotent, then he could read my mind. So, if prayer was meant as a channel of communication, I didn't see the need for it. I didn't pray like a lot of the people around me did, I just thought. By the time I was 11 or 12, I started to think even more critically about what they were trying to teach me. For example, I thought there were numerous different belief systems that promise many of the same things that my family's denomination did, so the chances that theirs was the one seemed pretty slim, assuming there was one at all. As a side note, I read on the sociotypes page that LIIs lean toward relativism more than other types.
To be honest, I'm leaning ILE again.
It's often difficult to reliably act on such principles without understanding other facets of a system because you never know exactly what the result will be. In such cases, it becomes a game of chance in which trial and error is involved. Eventually, you start to understand the whole system with greater precision and you're able to determine if the initial principle should be discarded. Part of the fun lies in the element of chance. Ideally, your principle applies universally.Right. My issue is just this, if you just have those general principles, how do you know how to apply them in in a specific way in a specific situation unless you have identified the other parts of the system?
Well, as a very basic example, I have a "formula" for how I write papers. I have several principles involved in the formula, including sentence structure, flow, grammar, verbiage, etc. I've developed this system over many years of writing on my own and in academics. But, recently, I took a class that demanded a new format. So, to make good grades in the class, I gradually tweaked the old formula until I made As. My success required feedback from the professor.If you can describe what you actually do, any of these two approaches or something else, I'd be interested in hearing about this. I do remember you said you generate possible options that just come up for you and then work through them verifying them. Is that part of this somehow?
As another example, in order to solve a problem, I'll start out with a hypothesis that represents a kind of "principle", if you will. Then, I'll go ahead and compare it with factual feedback and see if it checks out. Or, I'll check it against a series of alternative explanations to arrive at several, more complex explanations that would hold up under specific premises.
Probably. It takes time for me to get into the weeds. I mean, I think details are important because understanding the nuts and bolts of a project will give you good results. But my mind more naturally tries to generalize information.You mean, without the general principles, it'd be too detail-oriented analysis for your taste? Seeing trees but not the forest?
(bump)
Last edited by Desert Financial; 09-25-2018 at 02:34 PM.
@A Moderator
What do you think of this description? http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...nist_Cognition
Not really a fan of typing people by these cognitive styles, but some have found it useful. For some reasons your posts strike me as an example of CD cogntition. I can't put my finger on why so maybe it is irrelevant, but what do you think?Causal-Determinist cognition is known under synonymous names as formal logic or deterministic thinking, both of which emphasize its rigid nature.
One more thing: have you considered ego?
Tbh with you you don't strike me as ego, you seem quite expansive and confident in your ability to approach people.
Just my impression, but you make quite an impression, that's not something I get from egos AT ALL. Lol. egos come off to me as kinda weak and unimpressive, you seem to make an impact on your environment. Not fronting, but it is my impression and I thought I'd share.
I have. I used to type as LSI. + CD = LSI; leading me down that route, eh?
LSI's probably worth giving reconsideration. I thought I was LSI for a couple of years and joined this forum thinking I was one. And, to give credit to the notion, -Se sounds on the money. Whether Ti is + or - could go either way.
If I am LSI, then certain elements of my personality break the stereotypical mode (strong imagination and what @hag 2 mentioned), but that doesn't mean that LSI is off the drawing board.
I'll send you some, @hag 2.
Last edited by Desert Financial; 09-27-2018 at 01:44 AM.
@A Moderator, I haven’t read many of your posts, but if I had to type you by your avatar picture alone, I’d say LSI.
LSI’s tend to have a self-image that is vaguely reminiscent of feudal Japan (aristocratic) and their preferred colors are all black with a red accent.
*EDIT*
Hey, I see you had a previous username of Ronin. I didn’t know that when I wrote the above.
ILE, LSI=0
@golden you appear to have experience with LSIs and you seem like an EIE, which gives you credibility in that LSIs are probably your dual. If you have the time, I'd like to know what you think.
The stepwise clarity of CD cognition makes sense. You seem a bit grounded and effectively polite for an ILE, but I don’t have enough information to say one way or the other. I like you, but I tend to like anyone with Ti ego, and T in general appeals to me.
I don’t think it’s true that LSIs aren’t creative. They can be very creative, it just doesn’t have the same exploratory and surprising quality I associate with Ne. And rather than inject almost everything they do with creativity (as I do, which may be NTR), the ones I know seem to focus it in specific domains of interest and expertise, with an emphasis on technique and knowledge.
If I were trying to type you, I’d wonder things like ...
Are you ever visionary? What do you think of object potentiation in terms of something you might do? How do you view Ni? How do you view Si? Do you think you’re more rational or irrational? What does Fe do for you?
I’d look at your comportment, how bouncy you are, how much you move along a horizontal vs vertical axis, how carefully you walk, how you gesticulate (broad and loose vs precise and well within your personal space), the quality of your eyes (Ne usually warm, bright pools; Se usually more sharp, flicking, focused). I’d consider how well you are able to track your physical condition, and whether this is an area of need vs it just not mattering overmuch. Overall, I’d be looking at whether you’re an expansive or a contained person.
Over time, attending to things like this, if it weren’t immediately clear, one or the other of those types would emerge in my estimation if those are in fact the two that fit you best.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Thanks. I like you, too.
I agree, I think anyone can be creative; many sensors paint, draw, write music, play music, build, develop architecture, craft, etc.I don’t think it’s true that LSIs aren’t creative.
I don't dress creatively, eat creatively, sleep creatively, cook food creatively, etc. I mean, sometimes I do, and I'd say I'm open to exploring new horizons, but I can't say that's who I am, fundamentally.They can be very creative, it just doesn’t have the same exploratory and surprising quality I associate with Ne. And rather than inject almost everything they do with creativity (as I do, which may be NTR), the ones I know seem to focus it in specific domains of interest and expertise, with an emphasis on technique and knowledge.
In my life, creativity comes out in areas I have expertise in. For example, I like to think of interesting ways to bypass security measures or defeat opponents in strategy games I play. I also think of creative things to write, draw, and code, but it's based on developed skills.
Yes. I didn't really develop a visionary outlook until I was an adult, but I am sometimes visionary. It could be compared to the mindset you have when playing chess, developing a step-by-step process according to the most effective tactics that come to mind. In a broader sense, it's also about developing solutions for problems that haven't happened yet, which can involve thinking about global issues, but not necessarily.If I were trying to type you, I’d wonder things like ...
Are you ever visionary?
This question's pretty open-ended. Define object potentiation.What do you think of object potentiation in terms of something you might do?
I think it's pretty awesome. It tends to involve forecasting, long-term decision making, and seeing "through" things in a way that services your vision. It's interesting that despite how many people have puzzled over it and given it loads of attention, it still seems very misunderstood; it's just one of those functions that needs to be experienced to be grasped fully. Like any function, it has the capacity to miss the mark in its interpretation of the world, but I think it has more creative potential than people give it credit for because it facilitates a vision.How do you view Ni?
I have mixed feelings about it. I mean, I appreciate the stability it offers, but I think if you're an Si ego type, you're probably going to be pretty risk averse because you don't want to do anything that infringes too much on your comfort zone. Which is frustrating to deal with in others, and I dislike living that way personally because it means nothing's happening.How do you view Si?
I don't know because I have elements of each.Do you think you’re more rational or irrational?
I love Fe. I mean, it can get excessive if your entire life becomes about what other people feel. It's something I don't personally have a great handle on because it seems to compromise the integrity of my judging function. In others, I love it, tho.What does Fe do for you?
They may not give you enough time, but I have a couple of videos:I’d look at your comportment, how bouncy you are, how much you move along a horizontal vs vertical axis, how carefully you walk, how you gesticulate (broad and loose vs precise and well within your personal space), the quality of your eyes (Ne usually warm, bright pools; Se usually more sharp, flicking, focused). I’d consider how well you are able to track your physical condition, and whether this is an area of need vs it just not mattering overmuch. Overall, I’d be looking at whether you’re an expansive or a contained person.
Over time, attending to things like this, if it weren’t immediately clear, one or the other of those types would emerge in my estimation if those are in fact the two that fit you best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irlQ9HuAZTQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVYrkn8_ZdU
@A Moderator, IMO you're ILE. Please note that I didn't fully read your convo with golden and I'm not referring to or disagreeing with anything particular. My only reference point is your video. You look like a former co-worker of mine - whom I typed as ILE. That's all.
Why is LSI under consideration exactly...? It's not really consistent with the impression I got from your video.
You look extremely ILE > LSI to me in the videos at first blush. I can consider that more in-depth later today or tomorrow.
The fact that you say you are in some ways visionary points toward N.
I took the lazy way out on object potentiation by not defining it, but you didn’t accept the bait lol. I find Ne types in some aspects of their lives are able to do transformative things with concrete objects or situations. It seems to come naturally to them. A silly example:
See also
https://youtu.be/Gi1R5qty660
Don’t know for sure the artist’s type, but the absurd combinations, like a guy eating spaghetti out of his bathtub, are something I associate with Ne. So I think he at least values Ne.
LSIs actually can be pretty silly, at least with people they’re close to, but I must admit I never see them do anything remotely like that.
When you say you like Fe but then say “it can get excessive if ...” I’m inclined to think you want some off time from it, so maybe Fe dom isn’t your dual.
When you say Si can be risk averse, I’ll offer Ni creative also can be risk averse, extremely so. There must be a difference in how risk is assessed and averted between the two, and maybe in what is viewed as risky. But it’s def part of the type profile and ime accurate.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I suspected you were going there with "object potentiation", but wanted to see if you would iron that concept out for me because as I see it, the difference between how Se sees object potential and Ne sees object potential lacks expressed distinction. Is there any reason to believe an Se valuer couldn't be motivated to do what your picture depicts or what the guy in the video does?
I will say that what that kid is doing comes pretty naturally to me. The guy's way of thinking seems pretty similar to mine, and I have moments of inspiration exactly like his.
You have a very good point about how risk aversion relates to Ni and Si. The aversion of risk with Ni facilitates the vision. The aversion of risk with Si facilitates comfort and homeostasis. Maybe both functions have a strong relationship with risk because, as introverted perceiving functions, they are repelled from the object (and the object is perceived as a "threat" in some fashion or another, for reasons conscious or unconscious).
Last edited by Desert Financial; 09-28-2018 at 06:27 PM.
Instead of answering your question, I'd like to respond with a story.
When I was in second grade, I sat next to a boy named Jason and a girl named Amanda.
One day, as the students were quiet, working on an assignment, Amanda and Jason were talking.
Jason mentioned sex.
Amanda responded, "Ooo, that's a bad word. You shouldn't say that word."
Jason retorted, "C'mon, it's not like I said 'fuck' or anything."
Amanda gasped, "I can't believe you just said that!"
Then I quizzically responded, "Fuck? Fuck? How is that a bad word? That's not even a word. If fuck is a bad word, may God strike me down as I say it!"
I stood up, out of my seat. "FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK!"
Our teacher, Ms. Pignatello, overheard me, swooped in, and picked me up. She took me outside, bent me over her lap, and started to spank my ass, viciously. Her curly, brown hair violently billowed back and forth each time she hit my behind.
~Fin~
You seem Ne base. ILE or IEE
Based on video
Edit or maybe LII
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I’m not sure what the theory says or implies, but in practice, Beta STs seem good at assessing objects and situations, stereotypically to leverage power, but ime they will do it for more reasons than that, including showing off or amusing others in the case of SLE. I see them look at a person or thing and draw all kinds of conclusions via associations and experience.
I recently watched a video that’s behind a paywall, but if I find a copy somewhere I’ll let you know. It’s a street photographer doing Se stuff ... talking about how there are only so many things human beings will do, and you can begin to learn what those are so you can project from their actions where to point your camera and when to press the shutter. How his dad was a boxer and taught him these skills as street smarts from a young age. He also smooth talked people into letting him take their photos and knew how to subtly manipulate people into doing different things than they intended, such as where they moved, to improve his photo.
In another video I saw a different street photographer using mad intuition, he had no real analysis but followed what looked interesting and would also somewhat violate people’s space to get a reaction out of them, didn’t matter if they were angry or whatever. His photos are great, and rather than him finding that calculated moment, he finds unexpected things and his images are weird and also reveal the ways in which he changed the situation. Anyway, I mentioned to my husband how this guy was incredibly intuitive, and a couple of minutes later the photographer said, “It’s all intuition.”
Not sure if these descriptions offer anything useful, but the difference was clear between the two. One seemed very in control and commanding and smooth, the other seemed very loose and unpredictable and even awkward. One was pretty sure of what was going to happen in a concrete situation as it unfolded. The other didn’t know what would happen and enjoyed not knowing. I think they were SLE and ILE respectively, and they are both masterful artists. They both were reading human situations and using technical knowledge, they both were exercising a kind of power. Both were a little predatory. They were pretty different in the hows.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
@golden The description of the intuitive artist matches better than the other. I did that kind of thing in high school a lot and got in trouble a few times. I enjoyed learning from the reactions I solicited. Not to say that the other artist's method couldn't be employed with some effort, but the intuitive's sounds most natural and on the mark.
Before I get back to this thread, I'd also like to add that if there's any person on this forum I'd say is my "dual", it's @Aki. Not to say that she is, necessarily, but maybe we share some valued functions. There's an ease of communication I realized when she was just teasing (of course) Sol. Could be just me. But thought I'd put that out there to see if it stuck.
Last edited by Desert Financial; 09-29-2018 at 09:56 AM.
@hag 2 do you have any other reasons for LSI? You said I didn't look like any LSI you know, so your assertion is unexpected.
Yes I do think you're probably Delta NF, since you have a negative response to Ti and it's also not your strong suit.
C seems likely for us both.
Not sure why you wouldn't respond or why you'd want to delete the post.
I mean, it's really simple.
I just need you to manufacture an artificial identity for me to inflate my self-worth.
Otherwise, I might actually have to do something more substantial and meaningful with my time to create a more substantial basis for self-esteem.
You wouldn't want that, now would you?
The only way to achieve true liberation and fulfillment is by trapping myself in a cage made up of other peoples' misunderstandings, prejudices, and baggage.
There, I will wait in the depths of my psyche, where powerful unconscious forces circle around, like voracious sharks, unable to reach my soft, delicate ego.
Will you join me in this great feat!?
@A Moderator
I could very well have been wrong about ego for you. It was an impresion, but looking back, it was one that I hadn't thought through well enough and threw out rather quickly.
I could see ILE working for you pretty well, especially since you look like an ILE guy I know from real life (funny thing is, I know him from MtG and you happen to play too).
I'm not saying I think you are ILE without a doubt though, but you know yourself better than I know you and if you feel that ILE is right then I take that seriously.
I haven't looked through your questionnaire or video btw, if you'd like I could take a look. My impressions are based on your posts and our interactions.
Ok, I read the questionnaire and a few things stood out to me. I'm gonna write it down now or I'll lose my train of thought, lol.
First, you seem very NTish in your centers of interests. When you describe your interests in cybersecurity, it sounds creative: "breaking systems" you said. Sounds very creative.
When you said that in college there were too many options at your disposal, that you were aware of all the options but you didn't have any data about how those options tied into the real world, this strikes me as your being stronger than your , but it doesn't say if it is valued. Did having too many options feel upsetting or negative? Did you you not like the feeling of alternatives? Did you want to decide quickly?
Another thing I noticed is that you describe yourself as rather introverted. I'm pretty sure you mean a behavioral introvert and not a cogntive one, since there is a difference in socionics. This could be something that points away from ILE and more to base, but it's not sufficient because you have introverted extroverts and extroverted introverts. How introverted are you, behaviorally and cognitively, would you say? How does your introversion manifest? I do not see this as incompatible with ILE, as they can be somewhat introverted especialy since you seem to be a more introverted enneagram type.
All in all, I do see where you are coming from with ILE. I could also see LII with strong subtype, fwiw. LII does lead us away from CD cognition into HP cognition.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
With regard to the opening statements of your video, I don't feel stupid just because people disagree with me. Socionics is inherently not a rational thing because it isn't something that's reducible to today's language. Something that can't be put into words is hard to communicate. It's therefore more of a mystical thing that requires a certain state of mind as well as experience. Note that by using the word "mystical," I'm not just saying it's a feely thing. It requires a state of mind where you're directly engaging with some kind of observational experience. It's "gnostic" somehow. I've seen this stuff many times before, and so I "know" there's something to it. It's not something I can prove to anyone else. The best I can do is point out what I see and hope other people can pick up on the same things I'm observing. If they don't, that's fine and we can disagree. Not sure of what type you are yet, but I'll let you know if I have the time/energy/interest for further looks lol.
I suspect Te or Ti dom but that's just a random first impression type thing just based on a glance.
Understood.
The primary issue in deciding where to go to school was that I let myself get too wrapped up in expectations my family had of me. I wanted to go one of 3 secular schools in my area, but I let myself become too stressed by pressures from my family to expand my options and include Christian schools. I shut down because I felt that shutting down was preferable to feeling coerced into options I disliked. Now that I think about it, I held a pretty particular view of what made sense to do, and I disliked the feeling of being strayed into a bunch of uncertain bullshit. I didn't make my feelings on the matter known at the time, but nevertheless the feelings guided my actions deep down.When you said that in college there were too many options at your disposal, that you were aware of all the options but you didn't have any data about how those options tied into the real world, this strikes me as your being stronger than your , but it doesn't say if it is valued. Did having too many options feel upsetting or negative? Did you you not like the feeling of alternatives? Did you want to decide quickly?
What makes the topic of "options" debatable in my mind is that what's even considered an option is relative. For example, if we wanted to watch a movie, and I wanted to watch Godzilla while you wanted to watch King Kong, perhaps we'd both view each other as keeping our options closed, while seeing ourselves as trying to keep options open. That's what happens when you get caught up in others' expectations, and I did that frequently when I was younger. But really, taking an honest look at it, I personally had a fairly specific vision of what I wanted.
Behaviorally, I'm fairly introverted, going by the common definition of introvert. I see my friends once a week at most and most of my socializing is done online, so I'm not very visibly engaged compared to someone who enjoys hosting, throwing parties, or any of these other "extroverted" activities. My introversion manifests when I get tired, anxious, or when I need to reflect. For example, in the mornings, I'll often spend a good 15 minutes with images and ideas going through my head, energizing me, until it all comes to a stopping point and prompts me to start the day.Another thing I noticed is that you describe yourself as rather introverted. I'm pretty sure you mean a behavioral introvert and not a cogntive one, since there is a difference in socionics. This could be something that points away from ILE and more to base, but it's not sufficient because you have introverted extroverts and extroverted introverts. How introverted are you, behaviorally and cognitively, would you say? How does your introversion manifest? I do not see this as incompatible with ILE, as they can be somewhat introverted especialy since you seem to be a more introverted enneagram type.
Cognitively, it becomes fuzzier. I get energy from debating issues or examining concepts with people. I get energy from talking with people on this forum and last night, I wished people were more engaged in order to fulfill that need. But that desire is kind of rare for me. I'm in a transition phase of personal growth at the moment, so I'm floating the possibility that what I thought was a history of cognitive introversion was just depression/anxiety subduing real cognitive extraversion. But, it's too early to tell, so I don't want to give you an answer here when it's liable to be inaccurate.
I'm pretty sure I'm CD. Can revert to HP or VS, but most naturally I just perceive how things effect each other and how one event leads to the next.All in all, I do see where you are coming from with ILE. I could also see LII with strong subtype, fwiw. LII does lead us away from CD cognition into HP cognition.
Last edited by Desert Financial; 10-02-2018 at 03:10 AM.
The way this is written reminds me of the amazing atheist, as does its' foregoing post.
You seem to have a tendency to start off a thought, realize you've failed to give enough context with which to interpret what you've already said, and so go back to rephrase as though your active imagination is interrupting your thought process - often derailing it, which strikes me as leading Ne. Your reasoning is fairly sharp regardless. - For clarity, this is in reference to the video.
I'm inclined to think ILE.
Last edited by Mudlark; 10-02-2018 at 01:41 AM.
Regarding cognitive styles. I tend to find HP very irritating [at least sometimes] since they can jump into conclusions when their basis is potentially rotten crap.
It really brings to my mind my interaction with ESI.
ESI: Aah, this will be the best. I stick with it.
Me: Causal links are potentially very jumbled. Anyways, I found that.... which indicates that... therefore I think....
ESI: *lalalaa*
Me: *facepalm*
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org