Your typing of forum members

[Distance]

@Expansion

> My official MBTI score varies in between ENFP and ENTP. That means nothing. What is that?

Some MBTI certified typer did not give you concrete type, but gave 2 possible. Interesting that such practice exists there. If was used just the test by yourself - it's lesser surprising.
For Jung typology the sitation is not rare. With more of data the opinion could incline significantly to a single type. MBTI typers may to have study groups, a part of what they do is to help people understand better own types. It's also possibly to read books and to think by own for the similar result.
One of two said to you types seem as correct and the mistake in 2nd is 1 dichotomy only. It's not bad.

Sorry, it was taken as a test online, the standard and revised, and the better one yielded ENFP.

I'm aware of the dichotomy interpretations they give. S means wise in street smart ways, N academic interests.
P not externally organized. Etc.

It's the 2 camp dance. Here or there.

Overall it is true, but what do they think like, is my qualm. Here they give psychological interests in phenomenon in others, which is better as a bench mark. Better, by being lesser cold.

Overall, overall, I'm settled into it, by a large composite built up in research.

Thanks for the effort.

[kuno]

Sorry, it was taken as a test online, the standard and revised, and the better one yielded ENFP.

I'm aware of the dichotomy interpretations they give. S means wise in street smart ways, N academic interests.
P not externally organized. Etc.

It's the 2 camp dance. Here or there.

Overall it is true, but what do they think like, is my qualm. Here they give psychological interests in phenomenon in others, which is better as a bench mark. Better, by being lesser cold.

Overall, overall, I'm settled into it, by a large composite built up in research.

Thanks for the effort.

I'm glad you have faith in your own type That's always good to see!

[Distance]

I'm glad you have faith in your own type That's always good to see!

Well, after some time you see what cannot be, and you pick Xnumber out of 16, then it only resembles 2x narrowing it down.

So you are not sure, like in between ILE or IEE. But some members say, "your Fe is strong, i see it," and it adds another layer into one camp over of the other type. So you say again, but Fi looks like a driving force that is present always making the ego turn into a valued direction. With Base, HA, and Seeking yes, but if creative it is off, not on. So where is it at, you may ask yourself. So you notice yourself giving advice to people in the field of relationships not realizing the pattern. Is everything you say around better activity between people, in a people- centric stance? and how to attain something better here that greases that humanity wheel? whether practical or philosophical?

So you notice ILE isn't here in this, at all. But you can argue, it is reactive and Fe HA is like a cop, it enforces the broken law. But not promulgates it. The deal breaker is it does not formulate anything in proactive goals. Noticing whether it is creative or reactive in F realms.

The Fe part others see is true, so you notice do i Fe like other Fe people do? Like my wife is careful in that environment and puts on a mantle to adjust to that particular atmosphere, and walks that act, and changes into that, like a chameleon. Every situation is gauging the prevailing mood walking carefully, changing yourself each time.

The core ''you" changes each time in identity. Sure it is Fe creative, and EIE ESE don't morph, but they continue the atmosphere to hold it, or add to it, working out into this ethical slant.

So in time , you see what you are not, or cannot be, leaving only the rest.

The confidence lies here in knowing yourself comparatively with the types, not using a model of functions by itself in a single angle.

To me where is the evidence, i want to see it.

Thanks for the care.

[Sol]

it was taken as a test online, the standard and revised, and the better one yielded ENFP

Certified "irl" typing by MBTI has a possibility or always includes interview. This helps to overcome cases with low expressed traits by the test and should improve the accuracy.

> I'm aware of the dichotomy interpretations they give.

MBTI uses Jung's functions definitions + own J/P (which seems as appropriate). It may have secondary interpretation problems, the same as expanded descriptions in texts by Jung (!) himself and by others. Those are not critical in general usage, but may reduce the accuracy.
MBTI is similar to dichotomy tests in Socionics and influenced on dichotomies description in its books. MBTI is even included in Augustinavichiute's texts collection published in 1998.

Know Jung's definitions for 4 functions + e/i, rely on them mainly, trust to interpretations which you may rationally link with the definitions.
Psychology texts are humanitarian speculative mess which are full of mistakes. Even when something works, people may have wrong explanation about reasons. Augustinavichiute original texts is nightmare fantasy, with a couple of useful ideas and their partial reasonable development. Where MBTI texts are mainly remarkable by a single idiocy to claim people with leading rational/judging function to behave in irrational/perceiving style. Some interpretation mistakes or doubtful places are anywhere.

Simplify and limit theory usage to overcome this problem. Enlarge analysed data to overcome this and speculativity of methods. And such will get in practice reasonable, useful or close to it. To notice IR effects as phenomen, at least.

[Still Alive]

Expansion values Fe. He tends to give people the types they are already self-typing as, so basically what he thinks they want to hear. I also think he is a creative subtype, which makes him think that he's an extrovert. His poetic nature easily fits the type "lyric" best, so he's an IEI-C

[SlaveChildOfSlaanesh]

Expansion values Fe. He tends to give people the types they are already self-typing as, so basically what he thinks they want to hear. I also think he is a creative subtype, which makes him think that he's an extrovert. His poetic nature easily fits the type "lyric" best, so he's an IEI-C

Go back to sleep, you need your rest.

[Still Alive]

Go back to sleep, you need your rest.

Your SLI self-typing is very absurd in my opinion. You are likely an IEI, too. Probaby N or H-sub

[SlaveChildOfSlaanesh]

Your SLI self-typing is very absurd in my opinion. You are likely an IEI, too. Probaby N or H-sub

[Still Alive]

Te PolR must be an inabillity to evaluate yourself from an impersonal perspective. The Sagacious Relianum is into meditation yet the user is completely unable to grasp that this esoteric mindset is already indicating Ni. sol watches tarot videos and spends several hours a day on this site with >13k posts yet he thinks he's an ESxx type. These kinds of extremly flawed self-evaluations happen way too often here to be merely a coincidence

[nifl]

You are likely an IEI, too.

seems like it
would help his presentation without the self-appraising username and emotional signature

[Squirrel]

Let's close the thread as it's no longer useful, considering everyone is an IEI

[SlaveChildOfSlaanesh]

Let's close the thread as it's no longer useful, considering everyone is an IEI

Ah, he's just sleepy guys. Don't take him seriously, just needs his beauty sleep.

[Still Alive]

Let's close the thread as it's no longer useful, considering everyone is an IEI

I mean people can think like sol and others and pretend that all 16 types are equally interested in niche theories like socionics or upload videos of themselves on youtube, or they can recognize that 99% of people who are into this esoteric stuff are INxx, and if you would mention this theory to most people irl you would be perceived as a weirdo, especially outside the city

[Northstar]

99% of people who are into this esoteric stuff are INxx, and if you would mention this theory to most people irl you would be perceived as a weirdo, especially outside the city

Source for this claim?

[Still Alive]

Source for this claim?

Common sense

[Northstar]

Common sense

Okay so it's just your opinion and the numbers are pulled out of your ass

[Still Alive]

Okay so it's just your opinion and the numbers are pulled out of your ass

I've noticed that you like sniffing it considering the amount of replies I'm getting from you

[kuno]

@Asleep but couldn’t people with base Fi also be interested in Socionics? Fi bases tend to enjoy understanding and learning about people’s personalities (including their own personalities and feelings) and navigating the world of relations between people. And especially EII, with their strong Ne and demonstrative Ni; an EII could very easily enjoy Socionics and understand the concepts with ease, especially if their Ne and Ni are strong enough (perhaps EII-C or EII-H). And of course, LII would also have a natural propensity for understanding a system like Socionics, imo, given their tightly structured logical form of thinking, and their intuitive capabilities. You are LII yourself, after all

[Northstar]

I've noticed that you like sniffing it considering the amount of replies I'm getting from you

Typical rude IEI response.

[WinnieW]

Okay so it's just your opinion and the numbers are pulled out of your ass

I'm asking myself if this is a result of Te ignoring, because I try to underpin my claims by presenting facts and data from extrnal sources... Does that mean that I value Te or is this Te demonstrative?

[kuno]

I'm asking myself if this is a result of Te ignoring, because I try to underpin my claims by presenting facts and data from extrnal sources... Does that mean that I value Te or is this Te demonstrative?

I know you weren’t asking me but I think it could be equally either demo Te or valued Te. Even types that don’t have strong Te can be known for citing sources, like EII or ESI (but they might have to get into the habit of doing it). I think frequent citing of external sources is less likely from types that ignore Te or have PoLR Te. This is what I think

[Still Alive]

How about we stop pretending that Te is "facts" so that people like sol, nifl, Adam Strange, WinnieW and countless others stop confusing their type with something that doesn't make sense. How about we stop pretending a hands-on, mechanical type like LSI has 'facts' as weakness. Maybe your interpretation of socionics is dumb when one of the most concrete types in socionics has "facts" as ignoring function. It makes me cringe reading about Te=facts constantly and I expect people on this site to be more intelligent than that.

[Distance]

I'm asking myself if this is a result of Te ignoring, because I try to underpin my claims by presenting facts and data from extrnal sources... Does that mean that I value Te or is this Te demonstrative?

Here is the way the ignoring function works in an ego, let's use SLE. Se and Ne are base & role, and Si is ignoring. But the weight or thrust is Se, that is to apply force and if something in the past history, by way of Si showed a bad result by that memory impression, it might be ignored, because the roll of the dice for the conqueror is to venture out, not stop because it didn't work before. The roll of the dice is another roll of the dice, and things could be different one thinks, because Ni is not well informed.

Te is object motion as a metaphor, and which steps in this scope work best in an ordered efficiency, like planning an event, which order, or how to clean an area in the best logical way. It's how things work the best together knowing that dynamic. It is business logic. When we say facts, it is the application of it. When you read a textbook on fixing a car, that is applied information already existing in processed form. No Ti in there. Ti is you making inferences about it, possibility filling in negative space around it.

You could say Te is processed information or "facts." You do nothing but apply it.

[Finaplex]

Common sense

I just want to be happy, alive, content. Stable, yet growing. Where is my perfect intertype? Does such a thing even exist? Should I just give up on life now and become a day dreamer? How will I survive?

If INFp, where's all my positive affirmations?

[Finaplex]

Here is the way the ignoring function works in an ego, let's use SLE. Se and Ne are base & role, and Si is ignoring. But the weight or thrust is Se, that is to apply force and if something in the past history, by way of Si showed a bad result by that memory impression, it might be ignored, because the roll of the dice for the conqueror is to venture out, not stop because it didn't work before. The roll of the dice is another roll of the dice, and things could be different one thinks, because Ni is not well informed.

Te is object motion as a metaphor, and which steps in this scope work best in an ordered efficiency, like planning an event, which order, or how to clean an area in the best logical way. It's how things work the best together knowing that dynamic. It is business logic. When we say facts, it is the application of it. When you read a textbook on fixing a car, that is applied information already existing in processed form. No Ti in there. Ti is you making inferences about it, possibility filling in negative space around it.

You could say Te is processed information or "facts." You do nothing but apply it.

Ya, you get a good star!

[Distance]

Finaplex I'm getting IEI vibes for you. It's your Fe shining through. In shout box it seemed more evident the way it comes out.

[LugiaForce]

What’s Alive’s enneagram type? He positions endless arguments and waves of reason to storm the battlefront of digging and design.

[Still Alive]

What’s Alive’s enneagram type? He positions endless arguments and waves of reason to storm the battlefront of digging and design.

5w4 or 4w5 probably, but I'm not that deep into enneagram. I don't relate to the emotionality of 4 but deep down I think that I'm able to perceive things that most people do not comprehend (yet)

[WinnieW]

How about we stop pretending that Te is "facts"...

Pardon, did I claim that Te is facts, really? What I mean is referring to facts to confirm the argument I make is correct.
Facts itself are not Te, ofc.

[WinnieW]

Here is the way the ignoring function works in an ego, let's use SLE. Se and Ne are base & role, and Si is ignoring.

My own idea of Se and Si is that they have a different focus.
Se is the focus of actions in the real world, whereas Si is the focus what effect actions in the real world has to yourself.
Se is expressionistic, Si is impressionistic.

Te is about that every task has it's own optimal way of doing, whereas Ti is about finding general rules.
Filling "negative space" looks more Ne to me.

Ne is more the view to the world as a multi-verse, unrealized possibilities in contrast to what is real. Ni is more the view to the world as a developing universe.

My 2 Cents...

[Finaplex]

Finaplex I'm getting IEI vibes for you. It's your Fe shining through. In shout box it seemed more evident the way it comes out.

How so?

[Finaplex]

My own idea of Se and Si is that they have a different focus.
Se is the focus of actions in the real world, whereas Si is the focus what effect actions in the real world has to yourself.
Se is expressionistic, Si is impressionistic.

Te is about that every task has it's own optimal way of doing, whereas Ti is about finding general rules.
Filling "negative space" looks more Ne to me.

Ne is more the view to the world as a multi-verse, unrealized possibilities in contrast to what is real. Ni is more the view to the world as a developing universe.

My 2 Cents...

Multiverse theory in physics is big time Ne directed. I think the mainstream popularizers of the idea are base Ne.

[Distance]

How so?

A positivist with ethical concerns.

[Finaplex]

A positivist with ethical concerns.

True I do try and put up a good front.

I talk about ethical concerns on this site a lot that's true. Irl it's not always about that. I leave out a large portion of "me" here.

Not many people want to talk about what I usually talk about, or think and do the way I think and do. I kind of feel handicapped on this site, actually.

[Distance]

True I do try and put up a good front.

I talk about ethical concerns on this site a lot that's true. Irl it's not always about that. I leave out a large portion of "me" here.

Not many people want to talk about what I usually talk about, or think and do the way I think and do. I kind of feel handicapped on this site, actually.

Thanks for sharing. Well, the topics here are far reaching and global, so concern is warranted. It is just an observation, and inclining the vote for it.

Hope all goes well.

[Still Alive]

Multiverses are Ni, just like the thought that we are living in a "simulation"

[one]

Multiverses are Ni, just like the thought that we are living in a "simulation"

Beta NFs never failing to mention ascending to the 5th dimension

[Still Alive]

Beta NFs never failing to mention ascending to the 5th dimension

I just had breakfast today while the radio was on and hearing "I set fire to the rain" made me think "geez beta, calm down".

[Finaplex]

Multiverses are Ni, just like the thought that we are living in a "simulation"

Permutation is Ne. One choice splitting reality into a trillion new opportunities.

It's why Ne casts wide nets, to try and catch as much possibilities, possible. Look at the way you've type hundreds of people, sometimes with little thought. That's paraphrasing your words.

Ni is trying to find the singular path. That one angular momentum, even with variables.

Ne is like "I'm going to try all the hobbies". Hence expansion. Ballooning out, bubbles of foam. Each interaction creating hundreds more. Entropy. The Marvel Universe. Larger, bigger, greater. Everything, everywhere, all at Once.

[Finaplex]

Multiverses are Ni, just like the thought that we are living in a "simulation"

It's not really a great mystery that the mind, together with consciousness, is simulating it's world, for you, the apparent viewer.

Simulation theory is just a nu-age worldview on a very ancient idea.

Except this time the proponents of it are saying bed rock reality 'out there', outside ourselves, is a computer simulation.

I don't agree whatsoever, but can understand that when you grow up in a world surrounded by micro processing, you might mistake the separation between 'real' and simulated real. Which again, is an age old question, and a philosophical one: is the world my mind sees real? Or is my mind just making it up, through sensating information? This leads to solipsism and is a trap, in my view.

I think it's culturally the alpha NTs who are the vanguard for simulation theory. Neil DeGrasse Tyson springs to mind (ESE). YouTuber John Micheal Godier (LII), a science fiction author, is another.