Your typing of forum members

[Manatroid92]

https://www.sociotype.com/tests/
https://www.aimtoknow.com/test_beta

Not going to say these are outright wrong or not helpful, but they're not necessarily accurate for establishing a strict type.
There's also an issues of self-reporting being less reliable than other factors (people might say they're logical, but are actually quite ethical even if they don't realise it).

I think they are helpful to narrow-down on quadra or club, though.
For example, someone might get results that indicate they're IEE, when in actuality they are an EIE and don't know it. However, from the results you can probably assume they are likely intuitive, ethical, and/or aristocratic, so that gives you a decent chunk of types to think about.

Also, determining introversion/extroversion in Socionics is really hard too, most especially when it comes to self-reported tests, because E/I information elements are not about whether you're shy or outgoing.
And rational/irrational is hard to really judge too, unless you happen to be a very close representation to stereotype.


That all being said, it's good that the results from both give other possibilities of what your type could be in the results.

[lavos]

Not going to say these are outright wrong or not helpful, but they're not necessarily accurate for establishing a strict type.
There's also an issues of self-reporting being less reliable than other factors (people might say they're logical, but are actually quite ethical even if they don't realise it).

I think they are helpful to narrow-down on quadra or club, though.
For example, someone might get results that indicate they're IEE, when in actuality they are an EIE and don't know it. However, from the results you can probably assume they are likely intuitive, ethical, and/or aristocratic, so that gives you a decent chunk of types to think about.

Also, determining introversion/extroversion in Socionics is really hard too, most especially when it comes to self-reported tests, because E/I information elements are not about whether you're shy or outgoing.
And rational/irrational is hard to really judge too, unless you happen to be a very close representation to stereotype.


That all being said, it's good that the results from both give other possibilities of what your type could be in the results.

Yes it's true, but I am assuming some research would go in hand with the test result. With a bit of narrowing down and eliminating options, very likely you can find out your type. Tests are certainly helpful (if they are well crafted , that is), the only time where they might miss is if the person taking the test doesn't respond honestly (either consciously or subsconciously), or they have self-identity issues. For 95% of people, they will work and give them them good clues towards their real type, sometimes the type outright even (in the case of the Sociotype test). I'm judging based on my experience with them, and what I've observed of results in threads where the users have posted them. It could also be that I don't like the Ti method of analyzing questionnaires, but I do like the Te method of evaluating evidence of a person's presentation and how it lines up with Socionics workings.

[Tallmo]

Also, determining introversion/extroversion in Socionics is really hard too, most especially when it comes to self-reported tests, because E/I information elements are not about whether you're shy or outgoing.

They actually are, as far as the person has a developed type and is a "pure" type without accentuations or contradicting subtypes etc.

Typically an introvert is insecure about the world and has complexes about it. An extravert is insecure about his inner world. If the conscious type gets over-developed this becomes extreme.

In reality things are more complicated but the type itself is definitely contributing to introverts and extraverts behaving just as you described. But yes, tests don't work.

[Manatroid92]

They actually are, as far as the person has a developed type and is a "pure" type without accentuations or contradicting subtypes etc.

Typically an introvert is insecure about the world and has complexes about it. An extravert is insecure about his inner world. If the conscious type gets over-developed this becomes extreme.

In reality things are more complicated but the type itself is definitely contributing to introverts and extraverts behaving just as you described. But yes, tests don't work.

Yeah, factors like these are more obvious traits of the respective types. But I think how people perceive themselves as being more introverted than extroverted can be tricky, like some people can be more 'introverted' compared to their social circle, but they are still extroverted types. Subtypes may come into play here, too.

And insecurity about one's inner-world is one of those distinctions that's a bit nebulous as a means of self-assessment. It's a difference between I and E, sure, but I find it's hard to really quantify. If it was a quality that would be easy to measure in oneself, it would be very easy for someone to determine if they really are introverted or not, and not just shy/socially anxious or something.

[Miss Messy]

When I go through life I can't say that I have made that observation. Why is it that I feel comfortable expressing my interest in socionics to a random stranger I type as intuitive and they are interested while sensing types don't care about it at all or change the topic after a few sentences or I can't even imagine how I would introduce it? Stereotypes don't come from nowhere.

Don't forget that you live in Germany

Germans are generally more disciplined , more strict and serious than other peoples , I doubt that someone there would waste his time reading things about Socionics

Germany is not the whole world

[Lady Lunacy]

I don't understand why there is such a fuss with typings, when we actually have two very good tests that can tell a person's type with great accuracy. Now what needs to be invented is an AI that analyzes photos of people and gives the type (which I think soon could be possible). The only things that don't lie are tests (unles the taker games them) and VI. Especially VI. The rest... Are just Ti's of people and just their opinions (mostly).

I VI differently than I test. Explain.

[Lady Lunacy]

dr phil-worthy advice. only a fool would turn down this bargain of a deal

Dr Phil is a narcissistic asshole who I'm shocked understands his alphabet. I'm also not offering any deals, I'm saying "be respectful and don't get moderated when you reply to me, or continue as you are and get moderated when you reply to me." It's not a deal, it's consequences for his own actions. It's me not putting up with peoples' shit. It's called commanding respect, which first comes from having self-respect. You should learn it sometime.

[Lady Lunacy]

Oh well shit I didn’t really mean you as a mean girl. I’m just saying it seems something like a mean girl would say as in the movie mean girls

Ahh. Yeah, I can't relate to that type of mean girl. Those are the kinds of bitches I've always put in their place all my life, defended others from, etc. Bullies. So, if two has a mean girl side, no wonder she hates me.

Honestly, it's good to be hated sometimes. If no one hates you, you're doing something wrong.

[Robert Dane Horlock]

How in the actual hell is @Lady Lioness even remotely Beta NF? Literally, everything she says comes from a Fi standpoint, first and foremost. She prioritizes her own values and judgment over the group, and she doesn't care if she "upsets" the atmosphere (Fe ignoring) to get to the point concisely and say what needs to be said (Se creative). She also seems to care a great deal about protecting herself from harmful relations (-Fi, Gamma Quadra). I have never actually seen her explore alternative possibilities either, she's set on doing things her way (Ne PoLR). Never saw her use Demonstrative Ne, nor Fe or Ni well. I don't actually understand, functionally how you all see it in her.

[Lady Lunacy]

How in the actual hell is @Lady Lioness even remotely Beta NF? Literally, everything she says comes from a Fi standpoint, first and foremost. She prioritizes her own values and judgment over the group, and she doesn't care if she "upsets" the atmosphere (Fe ignoring) to get to the point concisely and say what needs to be said (Se creative). She also seems to care a great deal about protecting herself from harmful relations (-Fi, Gamma Quadra). I have never actually seen her explore alternative possibilities either, she's set on doing things her way (Ne PoLR). Never saw her use Demonstrative Ne, nor Fe or Ni well.

Accurate as fuck. Lol. I'm this much of an ESI meme. Although I'm a bit blind in the "doesn't explore alternatives" area. Not sure what alternatives I'm not exploring.

I don't actually understand, functionally how you all see it in her.

Aster is accurate about how I am, but I think she just mixes up types of passion, which is actually really easy to do and understandable.

[nifl]

@Lady Lioness
>Avoid, avoid, avoid, then blow up and overreact hardcore.
this is generally an introvert thing, IME - conflict in the Se sense is related materials, physical things, power, control of resources
also superego functions are the most painful, so strange behaviour is most usual in those areas

types are stereotypical, it's the only way to communicate about tendencies in people. when a person claims something about a type, they don't mean that everyone of that type conforms to that behaviour (hopefully). they are merely collections of, on average, more usual behaviour, not absolutes, for a specific type (such as Fi types being more concerned with their likes/dislikes than other types on average). everyone diverges from the descriptions to some degree, some more, some less. the type a person has is just what description they match with the most. notwithstanding that socionics itself is speculative and may be wrong about many things.

[Vex]

I’m gonna stir the pot too and say Lady Lioness is like, EIE. And also cp 6.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Robert Dane Horlock]

Accurate as fuck. Lol. I'm this much of an ESI meme. Although I'm a bit blind in the "doesn't explore alternatives" area. Not sure what alternatives I'm not exploring.

I should rephrase that to mean that you don't seem like a 'what if?' person; someone who explores multiple options for the sake of it and just sticks to the relevant ones. I've never seen you try and push the boundaries of what is realistically possible, potentially with your thought. You keep it realistic, and don't explore overly complex ideas, and blow them out of proportion. You're decisive, and you know what you want and you explore your options within that realm.

Aster is accurate about how I am, but I think she just mixes up types of passion, which is actually really easy to do and understandable.

Yeah, and I also think that she relies on vibes too much when typing people, and not so much the theory of functionality. Or how someone actually reacts in a given situation in the context of socionics and how it works. She may intuitively be right about people, yes, but not always in the context of the functions and the types on this forum.

[Alive]

I think the differences in perception of the type of @Lady Lioness ultimatively comes from the school or research you follow in socionics. She has read different sources. @Aster, @Pirouette and me simply follow Gulenko's school of thought about the types, and he portrays Beta as the warrior quadra full of passionate emotions. he even symbolizes this quadra with two knights on the front page of his website:

https://socioniks.net/

Gamma on the other hand is symbolized with capitalistic skyscrapers. he views Beta as youthful, passionate people (and if you are denying that Lady is not a passionate person you are denying reality imo) that fight against all odds for a goal that is difficult to achieve, while Gamma is characterized as pragmatic, egoistic, dispasionate, efficiency-driven and oriented towards material gain. this youthful spirit that Gulenko writes about is observable in many works of art



so it's basically just a difference in perspective that cannot really be brigded. you either trust in gulenko's school or follow a different system

[lavos]

I VI differently than I test. Explain.

VI takes precedence. Among the test results, there should be one that you VI as. That would be your type.

[lavos]

I think the differences in perception of the type of @Lady Lioness ultimatively comes from the school or research you follow in socionics. She has read different sources. @Aster, @Pirouette and me simply follow Gulenko's school of thought about the types, and he portrays Beta as the warrior quadra full of passionate emotions. he even symbolizes this quadra with two knights on the front page of his website:

https://socioniks.net/

Gamma on the other hand is symbolized with capitalistic skyscrapers. he views Beta as youthful, passionate people (and if you are denying that Lady is not a passionate person you are denying reality imo) that fight against all odds for a goal that is difficult to achieve, while Gamma is characterized as pragmatic, egoistic, dispasionate, efficiency-driven and oriented towards material gain. this youthful spirit that Gulenko writes about is observable in many works of art



so it's basically just a difference in perspective that cannot really be brigded. you either trust in gulenko's school or follow a different system

The views about the quadras are biased. Made by alpha NT's, who are not good at analyzing people but inanimate objects, came up with those.They are stereotypes. Gamma in particular is the most misunderstood quadra (understandable as well since it's the opposite quadra of the alpha NT's who write those descriptions). I noticed this bias very soon when I came to Socionics. Wonder why other people don't notice. I guess some gammas probably notice it too, but they don't say anything it seems

[Alive]

The views about the quadras are biased. Made by alpha NT's, who are not good at analyzing people but inanimate objects, came up with those.They are stereotypes. Gamma in particular is the most misunderstood quadra (understandable as well since it's the opposite quadra of the alpha NT's who write those descriptions). I noticed this bias very soon when I came to Socionics. Wonder why other people don't notice. I guess some gammas probably notice it too, but they don't say anything it seems

I mean you are entitled to your own opinion like everyone else but if you can't understand that people here place much more importance on a person that has analyzed personality types for decades compared to you who has never published anything significant and seems to completely rely on your intuition for typings, I dunno, you need to question yourself a little bit. most people here learn the theory in a casual way, and many just want to follow the person that is considered the absolute expert in the field and not a nobody that may or may not be right or gifted. Almost everyone here thinks they have the true insights into all of this but very few people actually make the effort of publishing articles about their thoughts. for now you are just a random person that occasionally gets a type right.

[lavos]

I mean you are entitled to your own opinion like everyone else but if you can't understand that people here place much more importance on a person that has analyzed personality types for decades compared to you who has never published anything significant and seems to completely rely on your intuition for typings, I dunno, you need to question yourself a little bit. most people here learn the theory in a casual way, and many just want to follow the person that is considered the absolute expert in the field and not a nobody that may or may not be right or gifted. Almost everyone here thinks they have the true insights into all of this but very few people actually make the effort of publishing articles about their thoughts. for now you are just a random person that occasionally gets a type right.

You're starting to grate on me. It is irrelevant if a person has supposed expertise, if what they are asserting is incorrect. This just shows how easily swayed by popular opinion, con men, titles, and supposed "expertise" you are. The truth is independent from who asserts it, it stands on its own. That you are unable to discern it, and have to rely on the opinion of these "experts", is your problem. But I have good news(I guess); a lot of people are just like you.

[Alive]

You're starting to grate on me. It is irrelevant if a person has supposed expertise, if what they are asserting isincorrect. This just shows how easily swayed by popular opinion, con men, titles, and supposed "expertise" you are. The truth is independent from who asserts it, it stands on its own. That you are unable to discern it, and have to rely on the opinion of these "experts", is your problem. But I have good news(I guess); a lot of people are just like you.

what truth are you even talking about? oh I know, it's your truth. "if only all these sheep could see what I can see". you treat your own opinion as the end all be all, only you can see through all the things. get a grip, man. why don't you go to a scientifc community and tell them about all the revelations you have? socionics will be accepted in no time. you are truly an all-knowing deity, or maybe just another Ni dom that thinks his fantasy is reality.

[Miss Messy]

maybe just another Ni dom that thinks his fantasy is reality

Don't you think you're like that ?

[lavos]

what truth are you even talking about? oh I know, it's your truth. "if only all these sheep could see what I can see". you treat your own opinion as the end all be all, only you can see through all the things. get a grip, man. why don't you go to a scientifc community and tell them about all the revelations you have? socionics will be accepted in no time. you are truly an all-knowing deity, or maybe just another Ni dom that thinks his fantasy is reality.

I don't pretend for anything I assert, for people to take it at face value. I want to believe (perhaps incorrectly) that people are intelligent enough to verify things. Or at least I want to make it so. And you're one to talk; who types half of the forum IEI. For sure, you're one to talk about "delusions"...

There are a lot of stupid people in positions of influence. That doesn't make it right or should be accepted. Wake up dude. You don't know anything.

[Alive]

Don't you think you're like that ?

you know, the same with you. I wish you were more humble. how long have you been studying socionics now? maybe half a year? and already you see yourself as an expert that needs to constantly criticize me even though I have you on ignore on chat and here because I can't read the nonsense you write. you switch your type like you switch your clothes. it is clear that you don't understand the theory, but you keep debating as if you are an expert. and yes, I get annoyed by that over time.

[Alive]

I don't pretend for anything I assert, for people to take it at face value. Wake up dude. You don't know anything.

You're starting to grate on me. It is irrelevant if a person has supposed expertise, if what they are asserting is incorrect. The truth is independent from who asserts it, it stands on its own. That you are unable to discern it, and have to rely on the opinion of these "experts", is your problem.

you literally are implying that Gulenko is wrong and that you are the person who knows the truth. don't pretend like it's otherwise.

[lavos]

you literally are implying that Gulenko is wrong and that you are the person who knows the truth. don't pretend like it's otherwise.

Can't Gulenko be wrong about something? Or the fact that he is "Gulenko" automatically makes everything he states correct, in a foolproof manner?

[Alive]

Can't Gulenko be wrong about something? Or the fact that he is "Gulenko" automatically makes everything he states correct, in a foolproof manner?

I am not saying he can't be wrong. I even disagree if you have noticed with my IEI typings. the things that is annoying about you is that you just claim "well, I know the truth, and people who follow him are sheep for trusting him", yet you have yet to post any sophisticated explanation for your thoughts, outside of "I use this very obscure model by some random person with weird plus/minus signs and that's the right one.

[WinnieW]

VI is true, alpha NT's might not like it much because they do not value +Ni/-Ne (pattern recognition, underlying/hidden phenomena).

Interessting. Wouldn't that mean that in consequence of that only gamma NT and delta NF types are able to use VI in a reliable way to type other people?

Ok, I posted an image of myself here.
Maybe you can use VI to tell what type I am.

[Alive]

Ok, I posted an image of myself here.
Maybe you can use VI to tell what type I am.

you look ethical

[WinnieW]

Germans are generally more disciplined , more strict and serious than other peoples...

Maybe not if you're a member of the alpha quadra. Oops... that applies to me as well.

[Miss Messy]

you know, the same with you. I wish you were more humble. how long have you been studying socionics now? maybe half a year? and already you see yourself as an expert that needs to constantly criticize me even though I have you on ignore on chat and here because I can't read the nonsense you write. you switch your type like you switch your clothes. it is clear that you don't understand the theory, but you keep debating as if you are an expert. and yes, I get annoyed by that over time.

After reading your response and remembering how many times you said you are an expert , I remembered the common phrase:

The person who knows a lot about something won't call himself as expert because he knows how much responsibility he has , only the person who knows little will call himself an expert

And btw , I haven't ever called myself an " expert " and I won't ever , not because I know a lot of things, but because I don't have plans to master socionics and I'm here for different reasons that are not of your business

It seems like you don't know what does the word " Forum " means

Here's a good definition, please read it many times until you realise what does it mean, instead of complaining about how much annoying are I , Coeruleum Blue and other members who criticize you because of your useless method of typing

[Poptart]

Idk why everyone gets mad at alive for over-typing IEI when Gulenko has the same problem (instead with beta rationals) ツ

Literally this forum:

[WinnieW]

you look ethical

Ok, if this is the case, I'll accept it. But then my type is neither LII nor ILE.

[Alive]

And btw , I haven't ever called myself an " expert " and I won't ever , not because I know a lot of things, but because I don't have plans to master socionics and I'm here for different reasons that are not of your business

It seems like you don't know what does the word " Forum " means

Here's a good definition, please read it many times until you realise what does it mean, instead of complaining about how much annoying are I , Coeruleum Blue and other members who criticize you because of your useless method of typing

how many types have you considered for yourself yet? SLE, ESI, LSI, maybe others I have missed? how long do you think it will take till you have had all 15 types? but it can't be IEI, Alive can't be right, it's the "absolute worst typing"

[Alive]

Idk why everyone gets mad at alive for over-typing IEI when Gulenko has the same problem (instead with beta rationals) ツ

Gulenko simply says Beta is the quadra that is interested in socionics, while I go even further and say only one type finds this theory very interesting. I do not know why people think sensing types or Te valuing types care for this theory. I think it's ridiculous to assume every type is equally interested in an obscure theory like this. socionics would have long been mainstream if that were the case

[Miss Messy]

you switch your type like you switch your clothes. it is clear that you don't understand the theory

Changing my type :

1- is not of your business

2- doesn't take away my right to discuss with you (since we are in a public forum)

and even Socionics real experts mistyped themselves, some of them you typed them completely different from their self-typing , does this mean that they do not have the right to deal with Socionics ?

[lavos]

Interessting. Wouldn't that mean that in consequence of that only gamma NT and delta NF types are able to use VI in a reliable way to type other people?

Ok, I posted an image of myself here.
Maybe you can use VI to tell what type I am.

The image is a bit of poor quality for VI purposes, but I'd guess ILE-Ti. Those will be the most capable potentially, but actually anyone who has ability with that IM will have capability. I actually think it is more -Ne than +Ni, but both can be used. My ILE-Ne uncle has good VI capability based on some things I've heard him say, and he gets it through Ignoring position. The ignoring in accepting types is somewhat proficient and contains both +/- elements. In producing types, it only contains one (but gives the impression of using it more frequently, and has a higher tolerance for it--but not actual ability).

[Alive]

Changing my type :

1- is not of your business

it indicates irrationality

[lavos]

Gulenko simply says Beta is the quadra that is interested in socionics, while I go even further and say only one type finds this theory very interesting. I do not know why people think sensing types or Te valuing types care for this theory. I think it's ridiculous to assume every type is equally interested in an obscure theory like this. socionics would have long been mainstream if that were the case

Have you thought any other possibility, like for example, just that beta types are over-represented in society? Don't see any logical reason why they ought to be more interested in Socionics than the rest.

[Miss Messy]

how many types have you considered for yourself yet? SLE, ESI, LSI, maybe others I have missed? how long do you think it will take till you have had all 15 types? but it can't be IEI, Alive can't be right, it's the "absolute worst typing"

After reading more in Socionics and do my video questionnaire only Beta ST and LII

I used to change my type a lot when I thought I'm an ethical type because no ethical type really suited me

ESI was the only ethical type which suited me somehow but after reading about similarities between Fi and Sx instinct , and after analysing the way I dealt with Fi the whole of my life I excluded it

SLE and ILI are excluded too , I'm for sure no type other than LXI : Ti ego , Fi role and Fe suggestive describes me well ( though it took me time to realise that since I'm not that person who cares about his personality that much )

And to be honest, it's almost settled in favor of the LSI, but I prefer to wait a bit before considering it completely

Now , if you have a good reason to type me IEI ( away from Ni+ and art that I explained why they're false in the Alive list of IEI thread ) then I won't mind you give them
If you don't, it's better to not make yourself a joke in the forum more than that

[Poptart]

Gulenko simply says Beta is the quadra that is interested in socionics, while I go even further and say only one type finds this theory very interesting. I do not know why people think sensing types or Te valuing types care for this theory. I think it's ridiculous to assume every type is equally interested in an obscure theory like this. socionics would have long been mainstream if that were the case

No one here is assuming that the types are uniformly interested in socionics.

Different types can approach the same topic for different reasons.

If you can’t imagine why a Te-valuing type would care about socionics, then I suggest learning more about those types. Maybe get to know some Te peeps irl.

[lavos]

For the record: Missmessy has really good Te, so I doubt she is IEI. The fact she wavers with her self-typing, can perhaps be attributed to youth, and low +Ne/-Ni (perhaps even PoLR).

+Ne/-Ni is the element responsible for asserting what something "is" or "isn't".