See what Big 5 traits you are visually attracted to!

[WinnieW]

Yeah no kidding. Probably those women are Ni-egos xP

or / and either seeking or valuing, I think.
I doubt that the vast majority of alpha SF type people are attracted to disagreeable people.
And alpha SF people are more agreeable than alpha NT people, I guess. Sometimes I can be shockingly disagreeable in debates... when my thinking preference takes over.

Hahaha hey, I scored 0% on conscientiousness in the last Big 5 test I took I'd be insulting myself if I thought all low-conscientious people were that way.

Low conscientiousness because the own comfort zone is so comfortable?
My conscientiousness is low because I spend too much time with observing and generating contextual connections... means a lot of time in my head and thinking.
It's easier for me to switch between five different topics in one minute than to stay focused on just one task for hours.

Yup, I've seen what you mean with how hospitable ESEs are, very generous and likeable! Well gosh, I envy you.

Thank you. My aunt has her own family and I see her only once in a while.

I wish I had some Alpha NTs around me while growing up But, there's still the possibility of finding a dual, one day

I wish you luck.

Well, the two faces that appealed to me the most were high openness and high emotional stability. Seems like that bears some similarity to Ne/Ti egos, maybe?

Openness is losely related to intuition. Emotional stability is not related to cognitive functions, afaik.

[Xaiviay]

or / and either seeking or valuing, I think.
I doubt that the vast majority of alpha SF type people are attracted to disagreeable people.
And alpha SF people are more agreeable than alpha NT people, I guess. Sometimes I can be shockingly disagreeable in debates... when my thinking preference takes over.

Hm, yeah that theory makes sense to me.
Mm-hm, but it's like, you're being 'disagreeable' because you're sticking to the version of the facts exactly as you see it, not sparing other people's feelings. Or at least, that's how I perceive it (thinking of people like Jordan Peterson, for instance, who I like listening to a lot).

Low conscientiousness because the own comfort zone is so comfortable?
My conscientiousness is low because I spend too much time with observing and generating contextual connections... means a lot of time in my head and thinking.
It's easier for me to switch between five different topics in one minute than to stay focused on just one task for hours.

Yeah, that's probably accurate. I don't like having a rigid schedule imposed on me. I'm comfortable living when things are unpredictable and disorganized...stereotypical irrational type behavior, maybe?
Ohh I see, you like to spend time thinking and exploring different topics more than acting out an organized lifestyle?

Thank you. My aunt has her own family and I see her only once in a while.

I wish you luck.

Ohh sorry you can't see her very often then :/ Hopefully you'll find some other ESEs to hang out with more often, if you haven't already. Thanks, also

Openness is losely related to intuition. Emotional stability is not related to cognitive functions, afaik.

Um, I thought that the Big 5 trait of emotional stability basically just rated how strongly you tend to feel your emotions in stressful situations, and that seems like something that would correlate with high/low feeling in Socionics. But I've never looked up a statistical reference for that, so I don't really know for sure. But yeah, Openness is somewhat intuition-related

[WinnieW]

Hm, yeah that theory makes sense to me.

Nice that you enjoyed my tiny lecture.

Mm-hm, but it's like, you're being 'disagreeable' because you're sticking to the version of the facts exactly as you see it, not sparing other people's feelings.

I'd not call it "version of facts", but rather my interpretation of the information I gathered.

Or at least, that's how I perceive it (thinking of people like Jordan Peterson, for instance, who I like listening to a lot).

I can't see Jordan Peterson as LII, because he use a lot of , more than

Yeah, that's probably accurate. I don't like having a rigid schedule imposed on me. I'm comfortable living when things are unpredictable and disorganized...stereotypical irrational type behavior, maybe?

Of course, as a SEI type you don't like much.
I might use , but i'm not aware of using it, and I don't have good control of

Ohh I see, you like to spend time thinking and exploring different topics more than acting out an organized lifestyle?

I try to find a proper balance between both of them.

Ohh sorry you can't see her very often then :/ Hopefully you'll find some other ESEs to hang out with more often, if you haven't already. Thanks, also

The problem is that ESE might be the type of my soulmaid, but definitly not the type of my mindmate.
Thank you.

Um, I thought that the Big 5 trait of emotional stability basically just rated how strongly you tend to feel your emotions in stressful situations, and that seems like something that would correlate with high/low feeling in Socionics.

Feeling is a rational function in the theory of C.G. Jung, but emotions itself are not rational.
But emotions are the foundation of feeling judgement.

[Xaiviay]

Nice that you enjoyed my tiny lecture.


I'd not call it "version of facts", but rather my interpretation of the information I gathered.

Ahh I see, gotcha Well I appreciate that idealogical consistency in LIIs, a lot of the time, it feels soothing to pay attention to.

I can't see Jordan Peterson as LII, because he use a lot of , more than

Really? I thought the demonstrative function can be pretty obvious too, right? He seems to be very Ti-dom and intuitive, imo.

Of course, as a SEI type you don't like much.
I might use , but i'm not aware of using it, and I don't have good control of

Yeahhh you understand me xD
Well at least you have there when you absolutely need it

The problem is that ESE might be the type of my soulmaid, but definitly not the type of my mindmate.
Thank you.

Really? Well that's a little depressing :/ Maybe you can find one who's more well developed all around. or who has learned how much benefit they can get from and so they'll really listen to your ideas? I kind of understand, though, since I don't like some things about most ILEs.

Feeling is a rational function in the theory of C.G. Jung, but emotions itself are not rational.
But emotions are the foundation of feeling judgement.

I see. Thanks for the input!

[WinnieW]

Ahh I see, gotcha Well I appreciate that idealogical consistency in LIIs, a lot of the time, it feels soothing to pay attention to.

Oh, you are charming me.

Really? I thought the demonstrative function can be pretty obvious too, right? He seems to be very Ti-dom and intuitive, imo.

You see his use of as demonstrative?
There is a long debate about his type. I'm not 100% sure what his type is.

Do you see him valuing and is his dual-seeking function? I don't see it.
I see him valuing , but is not a ego function of him.
Do you see him as -creative?

Yeahhh you understand me xD

Thanks.

Well at least you have there when you absolutely need it

However I should use more frequent for the practical stuff.

Really? Well that's a little depressing :/

Sometimes live is a little depressing. That's life.

Maybe you can find one who's more well developed all around. or who has learned how much benefit they can get from and so they'll really listen to your ideas? I kind of understand, though, since I don't like some things about most ILEs.

Maybe you don't like that ILE have -PoLR?

The only reason why I type myself LII-Ne is that I value more than ,
but I can't tell the order of and in my ego block.
My is also too developed for LII, however I believe that it is my dual-seeking function.
Furthermore I relate best to the description of the intuitive subtype of LII, but there is a chance that my self typing is wrong.

Personally I don't want a long lasting relationship with someone who is low in openness – and I need a partner with above average conscientiousness and above average agreeableness.

I see. Thanks for the input!

Thanks fior reading my posts, even my misspellings and confused words. English is not my native language, but I'm not entierly untalented in learning languages, I guess.

[Xaiviay]

Oh, you are charming me.

Lol, oh success!! xD

You see his use of as demonstrative?
There is a long debate about his type. I'm not 100% sure what his type is.

Do you see him valuing and is his dual-seeking function? I don't see it.
I see him valuing , but is not a ego function of him.
Do you see him as -creative?

Well, I see him as someone who uses intuition to form many overarching logical principles and he sticks to them very firmly, which fits the description of LIIs. To me he seems like a very rational (j) type, introverted, with a very strong Ti, and good used of intuition. Probably a more introverted LII than -LII, if he is that type.

But, I just watched some interviews of LIIs, ILIs, and LIEs from here, and I was left thinking Jordan Peterson shared more of a likeness with the LIEs. You're right that he's not showing much creative Ne, if any at all. He does talk about a lot of concerns, too, and he focuses on that a lot for someone who doesn't value it (if he's not LII).

Well, my initial typing was probably wrong. I'm leaning more towards LIE now, so Se-valuing but not Se-ego like you said.

Maybe you don't like that ILE have -PoLR?

I haven't noticed their Fi PoLR being a bother to me, yet. But most ILE men are just not aesthetically pleasing, to me. I'm a lot more visually-oriented than women are 'supposed' to be, on average, so that makes things even worse.

The only reason why I type myself LII-Ne is that I value more than ,
but I can't tell the order of and in my ego block.
My is also too developed for LII, however I believe that it is my dual-seeking function.
Furthermore I relate best to the description of the intuitive subtype of LII, but there is a chance that my self typing is wrong.

Hmm that's interesting. Judging by your info, I see why you settle on LII-Ne, even if you're not sure what IM is your base function. Part of why I settled on SEI-Fe is because I can handle using Ni better than Te, so I sort of know what you mean about valuing over . Well if you relate most to the intuitive subtype description of LII, that's a decent indicator. That's interesting that you have a well developed Fe, too, maybe it comes from being raised around so much of it. Somtimes I doubt my type too, but I've considered myself ESE before and it didn't feel fitting.

Personally I don't want a long lasting relationship with someone who is low in openness – and I need a partner with above average conscientiousness and above average agreeableness.

Oh, is this why you don't think of ESEs as your 'mindmate'? Some of the ESEs I've seen do tend to have high levels of conscientiousness, and of course agreeableness. They can be very industrious. This one ESE I knew seemed to have very high openness. Nothing was too weird or obscure for him. He had a wide variety of hobbies and interests. I typed him as a 7 in the Enneagram, but he also had a lot of traits of 3 and 2. Point being, I don't think it's unrealistic to hope for an ESE with high openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.

Thanks fior reading my posts, even my misspellings and confused words. English is not my native language, but I'm not entierly untalented in learning languages, I guess.

I'm having fun talking to you, so no problem! You're expressing yourself well. I couldn't tell English was not your native language. Thanks for reading my posts as well!

[WinnieW]

Lol, oh success!! xD

Well, I see him as someone who uses intuition to form many overarching logical principles and he sticks to them very firmly, which fits the description of LIIs.

I can see what you mean. But for LII he lacks some calmness (-valuing), and he present himself with a use stronger of a LII typical would do.
And to my perception he has a better concious grip on compared to LII.
I agree with you that he use a lot of for reasoning.

To me he seems like a very rational (j) type, introverted, with a very strong Ti, and good used of intuition. Probably a more introverted LII than -LII, if he is that type.

He sees himself as an extravert. There is a video on youtube that shows him talking about his own Big Five scores.
He says he has above average extraversion.

Well, my initial typing was probably wrong. I'm leaning more towards LIE now, so Se-valuing but not Se-ego like you said.

For now it looks like that no type fits him properly, but he is an intuitive type for sure.

I haven't noticed their Fi PoLR being a bother to me, yet.

Well, for SEI types is their demonstrative function. It is equally strong than your leading function, but it is a unconcious function.
You use it without realising it, but usually you don't care if other people use it.

I'm a lot more visually-oriented than women are 'supposed' to be, on average, so that makes things even worse.

Somewhere in this forum are pictures that show me.
Even one where I show a dead pan serious expression......and was typed ILI for that reason.

Part of why I settled on SEI-Fe is because I can handle using Ni better than Te, so I sort of know what you mean about valuing over .

You show a skilled use of and understanding of abstract concepts.

That's interesting that you have a well developed Fe, too, maybe it comes from being raised around so much of it.

Maybe, but I guess I'm less skillful at using than I'd like to be.
I guess I'm more -based adaptable to other people than -based.

Somtimes I doubt my type too, but I've considered myself ESE before and it didn't feel fitting.

Have you considered an NF type for youself?
If you score high in openness there is a chance that you're intuitive.

Oh, is this why you don't think of ESEs as your 'mindmate'?

Mainly because they are -PoLR... and I have 4D in my Id block... otherwise it depends on the enneagram type.
I prefer ESE with E-2 or E-9 over ESE with E-3, E-4 or E-7.

I'm having fun talking to you, so no problem!

Thank your for your in-depth guidance in terms of relationship. I appreciate it.

You're expressing yourself well. I couldn't tell English was not your native language. Thanks for reading my posts as well!

Oh, really? I guess practizing helps a lot. I don't write a lot of texts in this language, usually. I learned it at school, a long time ago.

[Myst]

Feeling is a rational function in the theory of C.G. Jung, but emotions itself are not rational.
But emotions are the foundation of feeling judgement.

Emotions are not rational in the sense of not being considered but otherwise they do serve a purpose on their own too alright. Agreed, they are a foundation for Feeling judgment. Just less refined information processing.

The problem is that ESE might be the type of my soulmaid, but definitly not the type of my mindmate.
Thank you.

Hm yah idk how Socionics duality is supposed to work there?

[WinnieW]

Hm yah idk how Socionics duality is supposed to work there?

Duality is about balancing out functions shared between partners, as I understand it.
Mindmate would be identical or mirror relationship.