Can you help? Am I ENFp or INFp?

[Eliza Thomason]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me, Eliza. Very interesting. I sadly can't relate because I'm not religious and the idea of God is very foreign for me, being brought up in an atheist family. I had a yearning for some larger power when I was younger and tried to feel a connection with it through paganism and other non-systemic religions and practices but could never really feel it or believe it --turns out I need a tangible experience to actually trust in something like that. So it's always interesting to me to read others' reflections on the topic and to wonder how it's possible to just trust in something outside of self (and others) and find peace in it. It sounds good. Just not accessible for me. And I'm okay with that, btw.

Oh, sorry I went on a bit when you were not even relating. But maybe you can relate to having a need to putting into words the things you have been pondering in your mind.

I have so many thoughts on what you said here, but have not been able to imagine at all what to say in response, but I will try now and see what comes out.

Primarily I feel sad for you, like I feel sad for anyone growing up without having people of faith in their lives. My parents weren't particularly faithful but had enough faith to take us to church. My Mom taught a little Sunday School even. I know this is because she had faith witnesses in her life, and she was taken to church as a child, where she met people of faith who impressed her for life. In the summer there were visiting chalk artists who told stories about Jesus while they drew, and they took an interest in my mother, and my mother ended up going to the college they taught at. So their impact had impact on me. It was in that neighborhood church we went to that we had a wonderful Sunday School department leader. She was young, single, very loving and she played the autoharp. She used to sit with us on the floor and tell us about Jesus and play us songs about God on her autoharp. She had costumes for us to dress up in to put on plays from the Bible, and she led a movement choir I was in, and she had so much patience with children, and real faith. And I think that faith-witness she gave was a contribution to my seeking faith later in life. God says when you seek Him you WILL find Him, and everything He says is always true, so, of course it worked that way for me. Faith is my greatest gift and treasure in life, and not because I deserve to have this faith, it's because God is good and He gives good gifts, and the gift of faith is one of those gifts He gives. I do not know why I am so blessed. Well, part of it is to pray for everyone else who doesn't know the power and blessing prayer to the real and true highest power and greatest love in this world and the next.

You said you wonder how people can trust in something outside yourself and that is a good question. When you want to know who is the true God, and seek Him, and even just desire a little bit to know who He is in your heart, He always reveals Himself. I always love to hear other people's stories of God revealed himself to them, because it is uniquely different for everyone, yet somehow the same. I also have enjoyed many stories of atheists who have come to know God, so I do know one does not need to grow up in a faithful environment to be blessed with faith.

Those times when you need something greater than yourself, a power outside yourself, and you call on it, God answers, and you KNOW this power is not you, but outside you.

Here are some well-loved sayings God that are dear to me and countless others over the centuries because they so perfectly encapsulate the great truth about how our hearts seek God:

"You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you." - St. Augustine of Hippo c.400 A.D.

And I love this quote of Blaise Pascal:

“What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace?
This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself”

Well I guess you can see this is my favorite topic. But I am going to look again at your post to answer more, and will work on it and post it tonight if there aren't too many interruptions.

[Eliza Thomason]

... ENFp... that's also the way I see myself --those moments I spend with friends have been the basis for my definition of myself... Turns out when looking for definitions, I match the ENFp one well and then find it very lacking.

Yes, it's hard to be pigeon-holed, and most of us resist that. But you'll see how extremely broad and deep the ENFp description is, and you won't feel that it limits. Of course, every other type description is also really broad and deep. There is a lot to people, anda lot to each of the types.

The ego I described in my OP is a state I can't stay in for a long time and I will disengage from it after a while. A couple of times I went sailing with a bunch of friends, I soon depleted my reserves of extraversion and had to go introvert somewhere. The boat was rather small and with no place to hide, I sort of got irritated whenever someone disturbed my 'solitude', asked to play games with them etc. They were a bit surprised because they didn't know me from this side. So there's that part too.

Well I've heard that ENFp is the most introverted extrovert, so that fits. Also the only time I was on a big sailboat was growing up when our family of 6 went on a great-aunt's sailboat in Rhode Island (And now that I live near there I wish i knew where that house was! She has long since passed. We only did this once.) and there was room on that boat, and I loved the experience, and I remember after some time on the deck going below to the sleeping room, because I just wanted to experience this on my own with my own thoughts. Since we are Fi, and so many things give us feeling impressions, and my experience is, and I have read this of ENFp, we need to get alone to work out our feelings. So being around people a great deal can invigorate us as well us make us want to withdraw adfn be alone.

I just very rarely see people for longer periods of time so I rarely have the possibility to notice how I behave. I've just realized that in the past three months that I've been living on my own, I only saw my boyfriend regularly (we don't live together tho) and I met with a friend or a family member maybe once a week or two. I'm totally okay with that. I should mention I work from home and have done so for the last 10 years, so again, no way to test how I behave around people when I have to meet them daily.

That's cool that you can work from home.

...I'll just paste a couple of the descriptions I posted before so you don't have to look.

That helps!

Being more precise about what I mean by harmony
...My point about harmony wasn't really about physical, tangible experience (which is actually quite unattainable to myself somehow) but more of the abstract nature of things. I'd say harmony is like illumination, where all aspects of self come together to form an aware and grounded 'me' that can navigate the world in an engaged yet detached manner. Something I sometimes experience and dear me, if I could just stay there for more than a day or two...

Yes, I do understand. I referred to physical harmony because that is intensely on my mind right now... I am currently rearranging, reorganizing and looking at what the main room in this house "needs" to look just right, and harmony is a big part of that. It's where my focus is today, but there is for me also a whole need for harmony within myself and with relationships. For me the biggest harmony issue comes from knowing what I believe about God and spiritual reality, and am I really living what i believe, or am I living in the world as if the things of this world are the bigger reality, when I know they're not, and just sort of sliding by with my faith like it's something I decided in the past, rather than something I am living. That is my biggest issue with harmonizing my inner self. And since it's not your struggle, I fear I am not grasping specifically what you mean by this. I do relate to wanting to navigate the world in an engaged yet detached manner. Yes.

In seeking to dwell feeling a certain way, I feel there is a danger. I think that doing the right thing is the most important thing in the moment, and though it might not be what I feel like doing at the moment, doing what's right, in the end will make me feel the best. That is me, from my experience. But you may get to the same place your way, as well!

But I think I understand where you're getting the Si vibes from: I gave the example of clothing matching the body in a harmonious way. Which is obviously Si-related. I did that to approximate my idea and I now realize I've failed because I oversimplified in order to not have to use big words and appear pretentious. Again, I'm quite unable to put it into words, but for me, the experience of looking at someone dressed in harmony with their essence is something beyond the tangible, external world. It's spiritual. Like becoming lost in a piece of art, particularly music (because of the time continuum --a person in clothing is not a static item, it's a process). Yes, it is an aesthetic experience, but more so it is spiritual. The best word to describe it that comes to mind would be numinosum.

...Aaand I just made myself pretentious in my own eyes.

I commented on this already, but I will add I also crave aesthetic experiences.

About Ne/Ni
...I generally dislike exploring ideas like 'what would it be like to walk on the Moon?' or 'what superpower would you choose if you could have one?'. Topics like that irk me. There's no connection to reality, or to me personally, I would not be able to experience that so WHY BOTHER THINKING ABOUT IT, YOU'RE WASTING MY TIME. I don't usually get angry at topics of conversation but these mildly irritate me and I see them as childish flights of fancy for some reason. I find that weird because I recognize these are innocent questions and there's nothing wrong with imagining things. But these are just... what's the point? It's not entertaining, it's not interesting, it's gibberish and excessive. (Whenever I a man asks me one of these questions, and that happens a lot to me somehow, I throw up a bit in my mouth.)

LOL, I don't like those questions at all, either! It must be some other type's idea of an interesting conversation. And since you are a thoughtful person, they think you can share on that topic, too...

It is for us a wonderful opportunity to be practice patience and other-focus while someone else expresses what is interesting for them, LOL. We can also kindly explain that we don't have much to offer on that question; it's not the kind of imagining that compels us to think. It reminds me how as an artist, I have my own ideas about what is beautiful, and I have almost no patience for bad art, for example, ugly handicrafts at an art show. I remember going to an art show and seeing booths packed with awful knitted kleenex box covers and other ugly cha-cha and feeling like I would rather throw up than look at that. I remember asking an artist friend (very talented and accomplished) if he had trouble looking at bad art like I do and he said no; he sees the person behind it and appreciates the effort put in. So, that was a lesson to me to try to see things differently than I naturally want to.

I also dislike it when I talk with my best friend about her problems and at the end of the conversation she says things like 'this could play out in so many ways... the future could bring anything...' and she's very prone to generalizations like that. I mean, if you wanna talk about different scenarios, sure, I can help coming up with them, I have no problem with that, although I think that's just excessive worry generation and bad for you. Again, this irks me. Why would you try to somehow charm the future by trying to predict it? Why not concentrate on things that are currently happening within you and trace them back to things that brought you here and see them for what they are and then make a conscious decision as to what you want to do instead of letting 'the world' happen around you while you just adjust yourself to it? I guess that's my calling for her agency --something we both lack so that's why it irritates me so much .

LOL, I relate. But she probably thinks its interesting when it's somehow hitting on a uncomfortable function for you. Another wonderful opportunity to stretch yourself into supporting some other very different type... and we ENFp's are pretty good at that.

I am finding it easier to morphe to other's ways at work now that I get to come home to my SLI, who I am totally comfortable around... It's a good thing!

Related to another video I made.

...My vagueness, I think, often stems from my childish tendency to think that others can easily read me and already know what's in my head, or actually in my heart because I only have this tendency about my feelings (I can easily explain things when it comes to knowledge and don't experience any stress about it if my knowledge is well based). I feel that I have everything written on my face so people know anyway.

Maybe because you can easily read others and what's in their head, adn you are assuming others can do this too... but not everyone can do that so well.

If they already know, then to explain too much would be excessive and even more embarrassing. It's very awkward for me. Some part of me thinks I'm way more expressive than I really am, and being expressive about my feelings is ungggghhhhh let's just not. Just got an illumination here. Is my PoLR Fe? That would point to ISTp and INTp. Interesting.

I think it's just that we like Fi so much, we would rather stay there then spend time in Fe. Fe is so overrated, we think. I particularly find Fe irritating in that it seems I am being told how to feel about a thing, because that is what everyone is supposed to feel about a thing. But we aren't bad at Fe, we just don't prefer it. I think I have said that feel at work I need to up my Fe awareness, so I try, and I try to be aware of group-feeling and play into it as much as possible... "It's not all about me," I remind myself...

And not entirely impossible, really, if I think about it from the perspective of: the more I know, the better and more confident I feel but the more I feel, the more confused, afraid and overwhelmed I am (illumination here being mostly this: I have so many feelings all the time but I actually don't feel good with them most of that time!), and always turning to thinking/analyzing to cope.

This sounds like me, too, at times, and at those times I feel I need to get out of myself and tune into others. Too much time alone and thinking of my own self can get me to a bad place. Also, for me, - and I am not preaching, but telling you what I actually do in this case - I read the Bible or other holy reading to get out of myself, and this is always a cure.

I remind myself at these times of what I wrote in the above post: that I need peace, and God promises me (and everyone) His supernatural peace if I ask for it. Getting too much of me in my head can make me anxious and gives rise to the need to ask for this peace.

This last part I was hoping to get a more general answer to... it's something that makes total sense to me but I don't know how it works within the system of socionics.
...

Hmm, okay, I'm not sure exactly how dynamic socionics is but I was wondering a thing. If a person is focused on developing their lower function and brings it into consciousness, that surely has to translate to the way they appear to others. On the other hand, it doesn't mean the integrated lower function will ever feel as natural and comfortable to the person as their top function(s).

Yes, we can purposely improve our functions, like I how wrote above how I try to improve my Fe awareness at work, acknowledging that my favored way of looking at things or my favored way of being might not be the best in this situation, and I try to look at things through a Fe lens. But yet we are stuck always being ourselves, and we come back, when we may, to what we really are. Like, you were talking of being messy, or not organized (can't remember exactly how your phrased it). Well, I had to be organized for me to handle doing my job, and I also had to develop a strong "j" side, and not just be ole "p" me. I had plenty of examples of great "j" in action at work to emulate, since it seems the majority of teachers are "j". Yup, lots pf "j"'s along with "p"'s acting like "j"'s.

Side note: how do we actually judge our own function stacking and development? We need to use a function to do that so which one is it?
Let's say it's Fi and we ping our emotional register to see how we feel about something (since many descriptions of functions focus on how a function feels to the user if it is in a respective position). The way I understand it, our Basic function is supposed to feel the most natural and comfortable for us to use. The Creative function may feel a bit uncomfortable but as we age and grow, it gets integrated with the basic function and I would presume it doesn't cause much trouble --or definitely not as much trouble as the Vulnerable function would.

Makes sense.

I've never had troubles with my T - I may be messy or bad at maths but it doesn't feel like a problem for me. If someone criticizes my knowledge or points out inconsistencies, I can usually take it pretty well and I'd rather learn more than assume I'm stupid and unable to improve. I accumulate knowledge easily in areas that interest me, I quickly become the 'expert' when I get into something. I can also easily convey that knowledge to others, without feeling any stress.

Depends on if you are talking Te or Ti. To me the problem with Ti is when I try to explain at Ti thing it takes me way too long and too many words to communicate it. This ENFp use of Ti is well-described in Sociotype.com's ENFp description, which I tried to link here, but the site must be down right now.

On the other hand, I've been a very socially inept child and was constantly bullied for this and ignored by my peers and it felt like living hell.

I sort of thought of myself this way too. My original explanation for this was being an "E" growing up in an "I" family and being expected to behave like an "I". I now think a bit of ignorance about Fe socializing was an issue, too, since school social popularity is very Fe linked. Also I was sensitive (and still am, but now I have more tools and remedies). It did not feel like a living hell, and I feel for you for that, but just accepted I was I was a bit of an outsider, and I had my few good friends, and I was glad for them. In high school it got better with the friends I made there, but I was too trusting and not all you supposse are friends are so true always, so there were some hurts, and also I did not know how to play social games. In college I sort of came out of my shell, and going to college frat parties with dorm-mates was a catalyst in that. And all sorts of friends in my dorm made a difference. I just went with the flow and blended in and had happy times with my friends. And some of the activities I did in college helped a lot too. I worked at getting out of my shell and it was a time of being more tuned into me all the time.

Also in college I found that coming out of my shell, and accomplishments and adventures, and social success (for me, compared to before) was not enough, something was missing inside. And so I wrote poems, like: "I am looking for something, don't know what, but when I find it, I will know it." Also one poem was about choosing to do nothing rather than things that weren't real - and the socializing I'd been so thrilled to engage in now seemed like a lack of realness. As college parties can be. So on that account I was alone one Friday night when the doorbell rang, and it was my roommate's friend, who had come to see her in a storm. But she wasn't there, and he was covered in snow, so I invited him in for tea, since that's what they did. And since they talked about Jesus, I asked him about Jesus, and completely unexpectedly, in that conversation, I found Jesus. I knew, this was the mysterious something I was looking for! This was the "not enough" that was inside me! (I asked, "Is that what those bumper stickers mean? Those 'I Found it' ones?" Yes, it was. And the high of being in love with Jesus lasted many many weeks and changed my life forever. That is what I found the emptiness inside means.

When I was about 15, I started to really work on this aspect of myself because I knew that otherwise I'd be alone forever and it felt terrifying (still does).

I am going to pray for you to have peace about this. And I do not think you will be alone forever. You are a very engaging person.

I found a group of (solely male) nerdy friends that I was able to connect with through my strong T and N that helped me get to my 20s without feeling left completely alone.

We ENFps often have a heart for those in the fringe...

I continued and still continue working on my F through all my life

Probably you mean work on your Fe.

and I'm now objectively pretty good at it but I still don't feel confident about it. I still don't know how to behave in new situations, I'm awkward meeting new people, I am bad at expressing my feelings, I'm rarely calm when I experience feelings. I react like a child and feel hurt and like I can't ever get good at this when someone criticizes my F-related inadequacies. I'm developed enough to know where I'm inadequate and that's where I apply myself to improve my state. But it's still a lot of very hard work.

Aw. There are plenty of self-help books for getting along in difficult social situations or with difficult people. I am sensitive and easily hurt, too, but over the years I have learned many coping techniques including how or when to stand up for myself, and also how to understand those who hurt (made me study a lot of psychology and personality theories) and Ican now often see into the person and see that lack, or the brokenness that makes then act out hurtfully. And I know who to avoid. And how to talk myself out of hurt feelings. I also experience feelings very strongly and I don't like to show them either (but it often shows!).

It is my faith that helps me in so many situations. For example, I went through a very difficult time adjusting to life as a single mother after divorce. People treat divorced people differently than married ones and I was very sensitive to that. I began praying the Litany of Humility* on a regular basis - daily, and more often if it was a tough day. This is because I was trying to grow in faith in the midst of these difficulties, and praying this prayer was recommended to me as a powerful tool for grace. Well here it is:

One day, i was struck with an unexpected insult or a dismissal of some sort (isn't it always unexpected?). My first NORMAL-for-me response would have been to feel extremely hurt and depressed! Instead, I felt the comforting presence of God right next to me, and I laughed, and said, "THANK you, Jesus! Just what I asked for!" - and I felt His amusement with me, and His shared delight in my discovery of this gift of grace I'd been given. And no bad hurt feelings! I knew that the GRACE (gift of God) that I had been praying to receive - to actually DESIRE to be ignored, or discounted, or ridiculed - had come to me. And just in time!

That is an example of the mysterious of things of God outside ourselves that are very useful, that are too difficult to manufacture for ourselves in difficult moments.

I've never had to work on T-related stuff this much. It just came in and if I found I wasn't good at some part of it, it didn't matter much because I knew I was good at other parts and that would be enough. When my mum got me tutoring in maths, chemistry and physics all through high school, I thought it was just a bother and a waste of money because I knew I wouldn't get better at those subjects and I never really applied myself to them - and I was okay with not being good at them.

It sounds like you are more into the arts than the sciences, like me. But if you HAD to be good at the sciences, I'm sure you could be. Your "I want" just wasn't there. You just didn't see the need to apply yourself to what you didn't enjoy.

For me, in college, after skating by on average grades for awhile, one of the things I pursued (in order to find that elusive missing "something") was to get straight A's, so to do that I had to apply myself in those courses I didn't like, as well as the ones I did like, and found that with some creative techniques and good time management I could learn them as well as anyone else. Not because of the loftier goal of wanting to master science, but because I wanted to receive A's. Because I hadn't before (consistently, anyway), and because I thought if I did get those straight A's I would have gain that elusive fulfilled-sense-of-self I was searching for. I did get the A's, and briefly, it was very fulfilling to accomplish that, and to be seen as a stellar student - which was the reward I'd sought. But I soon felt that was an empty prize, and while I thought it good to keep up the good grades, I was on searching for the next thing that would make me feel whole. Each thing I accomplished that I thought would be the "it" that made me happy - would make me happy - briefly. But always it felt at base, empty, or not enough. It was not until I found Jesus that I knew without a doubt that I found what I was looking for.

Again, I'm not sure how dynamic this theory is but if I spent about 20 years of my life developing my inadequate F, I would think I would already have it visible in the way I behave. Would it be possible that this is what you're picking up on?

I am sure I am seeing a whole pic of you, and its a picture of an ENFp! Maybe even ENFp-Ne, like me. (You'll have to read descriptions of ENFp-Ne and ENFP-Fi and decide which one sounds more like you. I feel I sound like both, but more Ne).

....If you ever had time to check these out and tell me how these resonated with you, let me know please! And again thanks for writing down all your thoughts before.

Oh, dear, I hope I did not give you too much to think about! It's why i put off writing; I knew it would take awhile. Possibly addressing Q's about how Sociotype influences thoughts you expressed gets a bit Ti for me, and that translates into me getting wordy, as I explain all the things possibly connected with a thing...

________________
* If that seems a crazy thing to pray, and you are interested in reading someone's reflection on that, there is one here: http://www.catholic365.com/article/1...-humility.html

[ToTheMoon]

...

Hi Eliza, and thank you for taking your time to answer my posts again. I had to think long and hard before answering because I just have no idea how to put into words what I have experienced while reading your response. I don't want to sound insensitive, I don't believe that I'm a brash person, so I hope you can take my answer as a polite try to create some distance between us. I totally appreciate your enthusiasm and eagerness to answer in detail! That was very kind of you to take a lot of time to do it. I think it benefitted me greatly, because I could see some pieces of the puzzle that were eluding me before. So in the name of science , I want to say what I felt while reading, and again, please don't take it the wrong way.

Your answer felt very overbearing and like you were trying to see things in me that aren't there. When you were relating to me, I have in turn found it incredibly hard to relate back to what you were saying. In fact, I didn't relate almost at all. I was surprised a lot of times, trying to figure out how it was that you were relating to something I said, while yourself talking about something completely different and unrelated to my statements. Instead of feeling supported and like I belong, I felt misunderstood and taken for granted --like you just wanted to talk about yourself, using my descriptions of myself as a jumping off point for your own musings. I guess some of my vague statements are to blame, as they offer a wide range of interpretations but it felt mildly insulting to me. But that's fine! It let me find a new perspective on things.

As I said, I needed some time to think about the things you said. I find it helps me cool down when I write down what I feel and then edit it to sound reasonable to others (which, yes, makes writing posts very long. I think I spent over two hours writing this one). (How Fe of me.) I did that process here as well and came to a conclusion that it was a really great to react to your post the way I reacted because it showed me where my boundaries lie. It's probably not related to my socionics type much, but it is important to me to know those boundaries and respect them. I have trouble with that. So thanks for providing that experience! On that note, there was one statement that stood out most among others. Again, my reaction to it could be unrelated to socionics at all, but to my conditioning and psychological profile instead. But I thought I'd share it here in case someone saw something in it.

I am sure I am seeing a whole pic of you (...)!

Maybe I'm overreacting here, I'm sure you had the best of intentions when writing this sentence but I'm so sorry, you definitely aren't seeing a whole pic of me. I think it would be a very rude thing to say to anyone because it's so objectifying, but regardless of social conventions, it touched me very deeply and in a very wrong way when I read it. Few things get to me like that. No, you're not seeing me. I tend to believe only personal interaction with someone can allow you to get to know the other person, and even then it's never going to be the full picture, no matter how many descriptions of themselves they give you. We perceive others through our own prism and we only see our reflections of the other person in us, not the person themselves. Yes, we can do a complicated thing like trying to find a type for someone, but we are unable to really see them in their entirety --that is already too complex for limited cognitive abilities of a human being. It's just not possible. I don't think people even see their own selves in their entirety. And that's totally okay. But in my mind, it's definitely not okay to say you see a whole pic of someone. That's like taking away what makes them an individual person, and bringing them down to an object that you can catalog and put away in one of the shelves in your mind. Sure, we all do that all the time, that makes it easier to live and interact with people. But hearing such a thing said openly rubs me the wrong way. Personally, I make these simplifications while still keeping an asterisk that says 'not really what you think they are' about every person I know.*

*Posting this whole paragraph makes me very uneasy because I'm aware it can create discord and hurt feelings. I thought of erasing it altogether but decided it should stay here, 'for science'.

I hope this didn't sound too blunt. I don't know how better to put it. Thanks again for taking all the time you took! It helped me see some things I couldn't recognize before.

[Eliza Thomason]

Hi Eliza, and thank you for taking your time to answer my posts again. I had to think long and hard before answering because I just have no idea how to put into words what I have experienced while reading your response. I don't want to sound insensitive, I don't believe that I'm a brash person, so I hope you can take my answer as a polite try to create some distance between us. I totally appreciate your enthusiasm and eagerness to answer in detail! That was very kind of you to take a lot of time to do it. I think it benefitted me greatly, because I could see some pieces of the puzzle that were eluding me before. So in the name of science , I want to say what I felt while reading, and again, please don't take it the wrong way.

Your answer felt very overbearing and like you were trying to see things in me that aren't there. When you were relating to me, I have in turn found it incredibly hard to relate back to what you were saying. In fact, I didn't relate almost at all. I was surprised a lot of times, trying to figure out how it was that you were relating to something I said, while yourself talking about something completely different and unrelated to my statements. Instead of feeling supported and like I belong, I felt misunderstood and taken for granted --like you just wanted to talk about yourself, using my descriptions of myself as a jumping off point for your own musings. I guess some of my vague statements are to blame, as they offer a wide range of interpretations but it felt mildly insulting to me. But that's fine! It let me find a new perspective on things.

As I said, I needed some time to think about the things you said. I find it helps me cool down when I write down what I feel and then edit it to sound reasonable to others (which, yes, makes writing posts very long. I think I spent over two hours writing this one). (How Fe of me.) I did that process here as well and came to a conclusion that it was a really great to react to your post the way I reacted because it showed me where my boundaries lie. It's probably not related to my socionics type much, but it is important to me to know those boundaries and respect them. I have trouble with that. So thanks for providing that experience! On that note, there was one statement that stood out most among others. Again, my reaction to it could be unrelated to socionics at all, but to my conditioning and psychological profile instead. But I thought I'd share it here in case someone saw something in it.


Maybe I'm overreacting here, I'm sure you had the best of intentions when writing this sentence but I'm so sorry, you definitely aren't seeing a whole pic of me. I think it would be a very rude thing to say to anyone because it's so objectifying, but regardless of social conventions, it touched me very deeply and in a very wrong way when I read it. Few things get to me like that. No, you're not seeing me. I tend to believe only personal interaction with someone can allow you to get to know the other person, and even then it's never going to be the full picture, no matter how many descriptions of themselves they give you. We perceive others through our own prism and we only see our reflections of the other person in us, not the person themselves. Yes, we can do a complicated thing like trying to find a type for someone, but we are unable to really see them in their entirety --that is already too complex for limited cognitive abilities of a human being. It's just not possible. I don't think people even see their own selves in their entirety. And that's totally okay. But in my mind, it's definitely not okay to say you see a whole pic of someone. That's like taking away what makes them an individual person, and bringing them down to an object that you can catalog and put away in one of the shelves in your mind. Sure, we all do that all the time, that makes it easier to live and interact with people. But hearing such a thing said openly rubs me the wrong way. Personally, I make these simplifications while still keeping an asterisk that says 'not really what you think they are' about every person I know.*

*Posting this whole paragraph makes me very uneasy because I'm aware it can create discord and hurt feelings. I thought of erasing it altogether but decided it should stay here, 'for science'.

I hope this didn't sound too blunt. I don't know how better to put it. Thanks again for taking all the time you took! It helped me see some things I couldn't recognize before.

Wow, this has been up for two days and I am just now seeing it. So I will add my feedback to the other feedback you got for this.

I guess I just feel out of touch here on The16T forum now. There has been a lot going on in my life this past year (major shifts and changes) and I spend less time reading on the forum, so I don't' know what is being said, or has been said when I do sign on and read. So when I sign on I just read randomly, and your post caught my interest. I also spend a long time on posts I do write, which have been lately little more than these two long ones to you (which is one reason why I generally don't get on the forum with any intention to write, because when I start one it can get long, and that takes time I don't have).

When I responded to your typing question, which was interesting to me, I wrote a long one, and then you asked me to write more, and I simply wanted to be accommodating. I guess I thought you LIKED what I wrote, and wanted more of the same? Did I completely misinterpret you there??

I should have realized I had said all I could, really, in the first one. I sort of realized it, because I was surprised you asked for more comment. So my second one, yes, did get into thoughts I had about me, as well as what I was saying about you, in effort to respond to what you asked. Rather ADD of me, I guess. I should have said I feel I have said what I can on the subject, rather than squeeze out more thoughts because I thought it would be helpful to you, based on what I understood you were asking. I certainly wish I had now.

And I also likely spent well over two hours, probably more, responding. And I also do lots of editing to get my thoughts out right (yet, i attribute this, personally, to strong Fi and less-confident Fe), though lately I feel I have to cut off my efforts in that area because I have a stricter real life schedule to stick to. So maybe that contributed to this horrible miscommunication.

The pain of seeing I have communicated poorly perhaps relates also to past personal history which has included painful spans of being misunderstood in certain key familial relationships (including a longtime marriage to one who I only years later realized had purposefully misunderstand me all those years because he enjoyed my discomforted reactions to being misunderstood). Because of my past experience in this I make a strong effort to be understanding of others, so it's quite painful to see in this case I have done the opposite of my intention and I am truly sorry for that. But yes, it is also painful for me as well to be misunderstood, so you do not have to worry about needing to create distance between us because I am sure that is the natural consequence here.

I do want to explain the comment I made that you grossly misunderstood, about seeing the "whole picture of you". I certainly did not mean it so literally as you interpreted it and reacted to it. I meant I saw a holistic overview of you. This is typical ENFp holistic- panoramic thinking, taking in an overview of the whole. So maybe you aren't ENFp and this sort of thinking is then naturally foreign to you.

But I am not trying to type you now. My way is to initially accept self-typing, up til the point I feel quite strongly someone has mistyped - and then I will only say something if I feel they will not be hurt by an opposing opinion of their self-typing. But I will not try to type you at all now, because I have offended you once, and do not want to do so again.

I am sort of gobsmacked that I came across to you as overbearing when you explicitly sought my opinion, and am rather wondering how that could have happened. I just thought you sought my thoughts, so I shared them. I don't think my opinion rules, or that you have to accept all, or any of it. I can't imagine how I came across that I felt my opinion was somehow infallible, but apparently, I did.

I am glad you were blunt, because I prefer the truth of things. Primarily, if you hadn't told me, I could blunder on and bother you more, and I sure don't want to do that. Truly, being understood is not so important to me as not offending. I would rather say nothing else and thereby not risk offending you any more.

I am truly sorry I offended you. Please forgive me.

[VenusRose]

@ToTheMoon If you are between quadras, I wonder how you would feel about these articles...

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ics-hypothesis

"The Complex of..." articles on the different quadras. Do you relate very well to any of these?

Here's one for dimensionality of functions, since that was brought up earlier.

[ToTheMoon]

@ToTheMoon If you are between quadras, I wonder how you would feel about these articles...

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ics-hypothesis

"The Complex of..." articles on the different quadras. Do you relate very well to any of these?

I can only honestly exclude the Beta quadra. The rest I can identify with in one place or another, but none with much larger accuracy than others. I could see myself functioning in all these modes, and, in fact, I have functioned in them, in different times of my life. Being an honest social chameleon seems to have its drawbacks when you can't trace your way back to yourself.

Here's one for dimensionality of functions, since that was brought up earlier.

Thank you! This article is ingenious. Now on a quest to decipher the bad translation...

[Sol]

This article is ingenious. Now on a quest to decipher the bad translation...

Dimensions of functions is one of baseless hypotheses which are not part of normal Socionics and should be avoided as much doubtful and never used as having more importance than normal theory in the borders of Jung and Augustinavichiute. 1st of all avoided by novices, as they do not understand the basics to check the degree those hypotheses are correct. too easy to be misleaded by that random thinking stuff
Rose is the example, who have made a mess in own head by the usage of random texts and is unable to see the evidence of other type than she writes in the profile. By this road you may repeat her achievement and of some others who mistype themselves and basis this by non-Socionics hypotheses.

[ToTheMoon]

Dimensions of functions is one of baseless hypotheses which are not part of normal Socionics and should be avoided as much doubtful and never used as having more importance than normal theory in the borders of Jung and Augustinavichiute. 1st of all avoided by novices, as they do not understand the basics to check the degree those hypotheses are correct. too easy to be misleaded by that random thinking stuff
Rose is the example, who have made a mess in own head by the usage of random texts and is unable to see the evidence of other type than she writes in the profile. By this road you may repeat her achievement and of some others who mistype themselves and basis this by non-Socionics hypotheses.

Hmm, okay, I get your drift, learn to walk before you try to run. That article interested me because I could easily identify in myself the processes that I'm largely stunted in and can't seem to gain experience in --like social situations that require normative behaviours which I don't already know, ie. travelling, behaving in a formal situation, meeting people outside my circle etc. No matter how many times I experience something new in this area (say, no matter how many times I travel abroad), I never feel like it equipped me with more knowledge about how to approach another new situation (so, each time I travel abroad, I experience anxiety connected to correct behaviour on the airport, confusion in the way I should walk in the streets in the place I'm visiting, the way I should talk to locals, how to buy food etc.). It's like I can't extrapolate from what I've already experienced to get better at handling things in this area. It's like there is a set of rules for each situation and you can't use rules from one situation to another because that would be inappropriate. I also don't feel like 'I can do whatever I want to do because I'm following my own set of rules' --no, the rules given 'from above' are the ones I should adhere to and in the face of that my own rules become insignificant. I feel like a child whenever I'm in some kind of office, when I travel abroad or meet people with whom I know I have little societal connection (for example they speak another language or have a knowledge I don't or they know the culture to which I'm a foreigner). So, compared to the descriptions from the article, that sounded to me like a one-dimensional function. My guess would be Fi or Fe.

[FlatEarthVegetarian420]

You are INFP 😎

[Bento]

From vi you're ne-creative and I find @Sol has got a point with his typing

[ToTheMoon]

From vi you're ne-creative and I find @Sol has got a point with his typing

Thanks! I can definitely see Ne in my VI as well.

[Bento]

Thanks! I can definitely see Ne in my VI as well.

No, thank you for your sober attitude in the post above.

[ToTheMoon]

No, thank you for your sober attitude in the post above.

Thanks .

[ToTheMoon]

Hi, I'm back after a longer while of studying and thinking and I have my answer, and by golly, @Beautiful sky was right! I'm SLI. No question about it.

I'm not going to go into full detail here because it's kind of personal (unless someone's super interested, then I can do it for science) but reading about function dimensionality and going back to basics again and reading about information elements and choosing which definitions to stick to really helped me finally put my finger on my whole experience of being me.

I should now write a book called 'From IEE to SLI or a recount of ways one girl tried and failed at being her own dual. A socionic memoire".

Thank you all for participation, this has been great and eye opening.

[Beautiful sky]

Hi, I'm back after a longer while of studying and thinking and I have my answer, any by golly, @Beautiful sky was right! I'm SLI. No question about it.

I'm not going to go into full detail here because it's kind of personal (unless someone's super interested, then I can do it for science) but reading about function dimensionality and going back to basics again and reading about information elements and choosing which definitions to stick to really helped me finally put my finger on my whole experience of being me.

I should now write a book called 'From IEE to SLI or a recount of ways one girl tried and failed at being her own dual. A socionic memoire".

Thank you all for participation, this has been great and eye opening.

it's common for a person to manifest their dual nature but be the other dual. the mind is a funny thing

[Exodus]

Hi, I'm back after a longer while of studying and thinking and I have my answer, and by golly, @Beautiful sky was right! I'm SLI. No question about it.

I'm not going to go into full detail here because it's kind of personal (unless someone's super interested, then I can do it for science) but reading about function dimensionality and going back to basics again and reading about information elements and choosing which definitions to stick to really helped me finally put my finger on my whole experience of being me.

I should now write a book called 'From IEE to SLI or a recount of ways one girl tried and failed at being her own dual. A socionic memoire".

Thank you all for participation, this has been great and eye opening.

Hmmmmm

You do realize that SLI is pretty much the exact opposite of how you described yourself in the OP?

[Sol]

You do realize that SLI is pretty much the exact opposite of how you described yourself in the OP?

she'll can after a rational thinking during practical typology usage. there will be a strong mess in IR effects, at least
as she mentioned the possible EIE semidual, so the reasons for that opinion can be emotional. emotions and thinking match not good

[Beautiful sky]

Hmmmmm

You do realize that SLI is pretty much the exact opposite of how you described yourself in the OP?

She’s SLI

[Exodus]

She’s SLI

You can say that all you want, it doesn't make it true

You said "it's common for a person to manifest their dual nature". Sorry but this is complete nonsense. People don't and can't consistently act like their duals. Confusing someone for their dual type is a relatively rare phenomenon.

[Beautiful sky]

You can say that all you want, it doesn't make it true

You said "it's common for a person to manifest their dual nature". Sorry but this is complete nonsense. People don't and can't consistently act like their duals. Confusing someone for their dual type is a relatively rare phenomenon.

She said it too

[Chthonic Daydream]

That's interesting, TTM.
I heard that we can type as our duals if we have a distorted-enough image of our idealized self BUT not sure how much I buy into it. It's pretty hard for me to imagine a SLE typing as IEI for example. Or ILI into SEE and vice-versa.

But the image of the self isn't the only thing worth considering here, really. Lots of forumites gave their opinion on the QA, and just as many people saw EII or IEE in you. Unless you are a method actor, I don't know how you'd really bamboozle all of us like that.

This is my input. Annnd, for the record, I'm not forcing anything on you. You're one of the sweetest and most wholesome members on here regardless of sociotype.(seriously, I still envy your tact. Wish I could handle conflicts without being PA, at the very least) You're still amazing!

[ooo]

fk socionics tbh

[Number 9 large]

fk socionics tbh

Hardcore

[The Reality Denialist]

I can say that I'm a huge hedonist considering taste and such. I was talking with SEI and she said she had very same issues with sweet tooth and stuff. I must say that I'm not so good at telling those things apart and so on and it is far from optimal understanding.

[ToTheMoon]

Hahah, thanks all for your comments! Hilarious stuff there .

Okay, so to clarify some of the confusion.

I was talking with a Ne dom friend when I was in the beginning stages of getting sick early last week. I'd had a high fever for a couple of days and she was mortified and told me to go to the doctor immediatelly to which I was kinda unfazed and meh. I don't go to doctors because I'm very rarely sick. I get colds, I get sore throats, I get stomach problems all the time but I'm not sick. And this is when it hit me. I just know my body and am tuned to it so well that I don't have to worry about it. Where my iNtuitive friends run around chasing doctors after every sneeze, I raise my eyebrows and think 'drama' and take another sip of my tea with honey and lemon and am good in three days. (Okay, I did call in a doctor this time but that was when my fever hit 40C/105f after a couple more days and I started getting worried because that was unusual.)

Sick in bed, I started thinking about Si. And sure as hell, those tantrums I threw in my youth (ones I mentioned somewhere on the first page of this thread) where everything new and different felt like an attack on me? That was coming from Si. That wasn't mature and wise Si but it was Si alright. With my maturing, came an understanding that stuff happens to take different forms and different people experience it in different ways and I've embraced it and started looking at life through this lense. So that 'weak' Si actually had the potential to grow, when nurtured, and it did. Looks like maybe 4D functions can do that. I think mature Si can appear a bit like Ne in that it helps me recognize and accept and even enjoy that everybody's different --and that's why I thought I was using a lot of Ne. But Si is not Ne in the way that it won't produce myriads of ideas per second and it won't help me look at a problem from all possible perspectives at once, and then throw in some impossible ones just for the sheer novelty of it. And, well --I was never really good at these, no matter how hard I tried. I was always good at automatically and unconsciously assessing my body's needs and others' needs (I have this superpower where I can look at your posture and then touch your back in the exact spot where it hurts the most; which, while cheeky, is actually great for giving a good massage), and I was excellent at aesthetics in the general sense, not just the artistic one. Recognizing different harmonies and making things harmonious is my forte. So that got me thinking, yeah, Si is where I'm actually good at.

About my starting point of ENFp, and why. I seriously think there is only so much nature can do when it's put in the face of overwhelming nurture. And so, me, an aesthetically inclined and very rigid Si dom, went on to study cultural anthropology of all things. Now I don't know what take on this subject there is outside of where I live, but here, on my university, it is an explosion of Ne. Even the slogan of our faculty read something along the lines of 'surprise/astonish yourself with the world'. When I was writing my theses, I would get no structuring and all my lecturers would suggest to me was to 'just write about it'. I went to my studies hoping to find structures and systems and mechanisms that run the world so I could better understand it and all I got was a lousy sense of self in a post-modernist academia and a mild trauma after travelling to the former eastern block countries for research --constantly putting myself in situations where everything felt new and like I couldn't have prepared for it was incredibly hard for me. That was a lot of exposing myself to Ne. Interestingly, during my studies a lot of my friends started mentioning I was acting rude and insensitive. My manner of never beating around the bush and being sarcastic towards other people weren't exacly buying me anymore of their patience and liking. So I started curbing myself, toning my opinions down, becoming more mediative and using what I personally consider 'frills' around my various statements in order to not offend anyone. In short, I went training myself in Fi, and to some degree of success, I believe.

Needless to say, I wasn't the same person when I left the faculty (I stayed for about 10 years). I am much more relaxed and a lot of my former rigidity went away because --nurture happened and I was ready to listen and learn. Not that it was a smooth ride. It wasn't and I know that I overdid it a lot and lost myself in the process more than once --identity crises were aplenty during that time and after.

In short, for the last 10+ years I was so focused on functions other than my 1st and 2nd that when trying to type myself, I simply took them for granted. They worked for me silently in the background, they didn't stand out, and all I could see were my attempts at improving myself in areas where I wasn't as good. Yep, there's a lot to be said here about over-idealizing self. It actually feels really good to have this sober look at myself. Takes a lot of pressure away. For me, the sudden realization that I'm really not and also don't have to be as free-flowing and spontaneous and adaptable and easygoing as I thought I should be feels liberating. I can go back to being my down to earth, punny, endearingly stiff and just a tad uncaring (gasp) personality with no regrets --although I'm sure it will take some time, getting it back. After all I've worked very long and hard to bury it with all the goodness and fluff . Maybe I'll just forge it into a special personal combo and turn out a cute smiling butterfly made of metal and retractable spikes. I mean, it could happen.

[Tallmo]

I dont know. I think you might be overthinking things. You seemed like Harmonizing subtype so that can also create confusion.

[ToTheMoon]

I dont know. I think you might be overthinking things.

Just when I finally felt I wasn't .

You seemed like Harmonizing subtype so that can also create confusion.

I haven't read on subtypes in socionics yet but I am enneagram 9 so there's that.

[Bento]

@ToTheMoon
some advice you never asked for: Just take your whatever-type, stick to it as long as it makes sense to you. You don't have to prove anything to anyone.

[ToTheMoon]

@ToTheMoon
some advice you never asked for: Just take your whatever-type, stick to it as long as it makes sense to you. You don't have to prove anything to anyone.

Well put.

I do find that once I settle on a type within any typology, the need to identify with a type (any type, even the one I end up with) vanishes. I guess I just got there. Along with the need to identify vanishing, the need to prove anything to others vanishes as well.

Side note. Not sure what others think about it and I'd be curious to listen. In my short but intense learning experience with different cognitive typologies, I have found them to be, well, pretty static models. My view of personality is dynamic, meaning that it is like a living organism that can expand and contract; develop and decline; grow and withdraw; put life force into a facet or leave it lifeless. This is mostly a lens I'm seeing myself through, and the various changes in the way that I am and had been in the past. Anyone here with similar idea of a malleable self? I think the approach that hits closest to this dynamic view is the one guys from cognitivetype.com propose --then again, I have other issues with their solely VI-based take. Perhaps I've been looking to define myself in the wrong place all along. Typologies are like candy, though, I just can't help myself .

[Tallmo]

Well put.

I do find that once I settle on a type within any typology, the need to identify with a type (any type, even the one I end up with) vanishes. I guess I just got there. Along with the need to identify vanishing, the need to prove anything to others vanishes as well.

Side note. Not sure what others think about it and I'd be curious to listen. In my short but intense learning experience with different cognitive typologies, I have found them to be, well, pretty static models. My view of personality is dynamic, meaning that it is like a living organism that can expand and contract; develop and decline; grow and withdraw; put life force into a facet or leave it lifeless. This is mostly a lens I'm seeing myself through, and the various changes in the way that I am and had been in the past. Anyone here with similar idea of a malleable self? I think the approach that hits closest to this dynamic view is the one guys from cognitivetype.com propose --then again, I have other issues with their solely VI-based take. Perhaps I've been looking to define myself in the wrong place all along. Typologies are like candy, though, I just can't help myself .

Of course personality is dynamic. But Socionics doesn't capture your personality in it's fullness. It only concentrates on the IM type, that is the certain profile of cognitive processing.

[Aeris]

Well put.

I do find that once I settle on a type within any typology, the need to identify with a type (any type, even the one I end up with) vanishes. I guess I just got there. Along with the need to identify vanishing, the need to prove anything to others vanishes as well.

Side note. Not sure what others think about it and I'd be curious to listen. In my short but intense learning experience with different cognitive typologies, I have found them to be, well, pretty static models. My view of personality is dynamic, meaning that it is like a living organism that can expand and contract; develop and decline; grow and withdraw; put life force into a facet or leave it lifeless. This is mostly a lens I'm seeing myself through, and the various changes in the way that I am and had been in the past. Anyone here with similar idea of a malleable self? I think the approach that hits closest to this dynamic view is the one guys from cognitivetype.com propose --then again, I have other issues with their solely VI-based take. Perhaps I've been looking to define myself in the wrong place all along. Typologies are like candy, though, I just can't help myself .

I only think of socionics as how one goes from point A to point B in their head, decision process, not as personality.
There are people I know who are considered kind, generous, good people inside and out that I find grossly self-interested, abrasive, demanding. Why is that? Why do they rub me off the wrong way while others just luv luv LUV 'em? It's not always socionics explainable, some stuff are, but not all. Being in an opposing quadra environment can take a toll on a person, mostly children, though it can make one "grow out" of type related stubborness and make one more open to differences.
Quadra values fly off over my head, I don't believe in them, like I can't stand type descriptions or anything very detailed, because each detail can become an arguing point as to why X is not Y type, and that can be a neverending bunch of non-sense. Every person has a different way to percieve the world, coming from a different background, family, everything. 16 types for 7'684'216'257 persons, that's cray, and only one number is going up.
Each people we have crossed has had a different idea of who we are, some liked, some hated, and why is that? The list can go on for days, and socionics will only be one item on it... unless people explain everything with functions, but then again, we all have a different view of each function, just like if I say "flower", no one is going to have the exact same image in mind. Some people will see the word, but in which way is this word written?
I think of socionics as a way to classify people coldly, outside of their feelings, which is great for me.
I also noticed that it's possible to have functional preferences that has nothing to do with valued functions, in a more or less conscious fashion of trying to be someone you're not, be it by wanting or feeling forced to, or even just liking the function in others.
I find that if I care what type I'm supposed to be, which one to live up to, I get really crazy and distressed, because I want to do things well. Too well. That's why I don't talk about my type, I don't want people to come at me demanding I prove them stuff because whatever.
I like who I like and that's it.

[FarDraft]

@ToTheMoon
some advice you never asked for: Just take your whatever-type, stick to it as long as it makes sense to you. You don't have to prove anything to anyone.

I agree with this with one caveat: be open to changing your type as new information is available. For example, I have typed myself INTp for the time being despite some thinking I'm INTj, though I haven't had enough relationships (impersonal, personal, business, etc.) to type myself on the basis of IR. Instead, I read through the profiles (carefully), found that I don't relate to Ti base as much as I do Ni base (after thorough reflection, though I'm still contemplating this) and went from there. As I obtain more IR information, I can reevaluate my type on that basis and try to reconcile that information with information I have already accumulated.

Moreover, type has a tendency to fluctuate when you're either uncertain of what you want or who you are, so waiting until you've comfortably settled might be the best way to be certain about your type. I don't know about your situation financially, mentally, emotionally, etc. so only you can determine whether you're "ready" to be typed. Typing too firmly preemptively leads one to idealize themselves to something that isn't true. I've found myself falling into this trap in recent months - I always have to remind myself that I'm not at the stage where I can be completely certain about these things.

[The Reality Denialist]

Yeah, as you talk it seems to be quite distant of generating any sort of view. Sounds like it wants to get there. So the idea never becomes fully crystallized. If we think of it as complementing IEE's thought process it seems to do it quite well. Being away from discomforting things is also very SLI like quality. If IEE painting fluffy pictures to your mind sounds like a duality then you should be fine with SLI typing.


EII? Ummm... well let's say that those views are still pretty far from tangible humanist thinking.

[Rebelondeck]

In general, these two types are very different with respect to information processing; data filtering and rationalization are in such opposing configurations that distinguishing between the two types should be fairly straightforward. Which description better suits you although you should keep in mind that they were written for specific individuals:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...iption-by-I-O?
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...iption-by-I-O?

a.k.a. I/O

[Blue]

OMG this person is not SLI!

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Sounds way more ENFp than INFp. Especially what you were judgmental about, and also the tone of your posts is more Delta than Beta.

I don't judge most situations as unhealthy/healthy as I'm a very shades of gray type of person. (both SEI/IEI are like this imnsho) Very very few things are all good or all bad... every cloud has its silver lining and every rose as its thorns. So I don't know the specifics of your situation, but maybe you are being too hard on yourself by labeling yourself as 'unhealthy.' Unhealthy is more of a physical thing to me lol, like the person is too fat or out of shape and doesn't eat the right things.

[ToTheMoon]

I've already settled on a type and you guys keep talking about me in my absence. It's both fun and scary to watch .

[QueenTiger666]

I've already settled on a type and you guys keep talking about me in my absence. It's both fun and scary to watch .

Love your attitude hun, don't fall into the pitfall of letting others dictate your type like I did for a while

[ToTheMoon]

Umm, guys, please, don't get into arguments in this silly old thread. I'm just a stranger on the internet, who cares if I'm right or wrong? I picked a type for myself after careful consideration of many apects and I'm by far the best expert on myself there is, so no one can really contradict me. Not to sound rude but why make it a personal agenda and power play when it's about another person none of you really know? Let's take a breath and step back and make it impersonal and leave it at that .

[Exodus]

Umm, guys, please, don't get into arguments in this silly old thread. I'm just a stranger on the internet, who cares if I'm right or wrong? I picked a type for myself after careful consideration of many apects and I'm by far the best expert on myself there is, so no one can really contradict me. Not to sound rude but why make it a personal agenda and power play when it's about another person none of you really know? Let's take a breath and step back and make it impersonal and leave it at that .

I honestly don't care what type you are. What I do care about is people understanding socionics, and having honest discussions where people support their arguments. Fortunately most people here would probably get that what @Beautiful sky is saying doesn't make any sense. If you don't then I won't try to convince you. btw, you can close the thread to prevent further discussion, since you've figured it all out (for now, at least).

Also, typing someone requires both knowledge of the person and knowledge of the theory. Usually the latter is the more critical factor.