Can you help? Am I ENFp or INFp?

[ToTheMoon]

@ToTheMoon Well, I can say you're extremely better than I am at people negotiations. You're able to put into neutral words what you're feeling and de-escalate conflict. When I've found myself completely misunderstood by people who insisted that they knew me, what I meant etc. my reaction was heh, nevermind, that's not important for your type. Just have to say I'm impressed by how you handled it. Higher level ethics maybe then.

Wow, thanks. I do have that diplomatic streak. If I speak out my initial gut reaction, it always turns out to be so much drama. I learned it's better to tone it down. Maybe I've had a talent for it that I developed over the years.

[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.

[ToTheMoon]

...

First of all, please don't worry, I really wasn't offended! As a side notw, the comment you made was one I hoped I'd avoid by using my technical approach in my last post but alas . We do seem to function in different ways, don't we? I'd say your considerate and kind response here truly confirms you are a high Fi user and that's a beautiful thing.

I guess the biggest misunderstanding happened when I asked for more of your relations towards my statements. I should have stated my motivation for asking that and I didn't. To clarify right now: I asked for them because I didn't want to judge right away, based on your first answers, and wanted to dig deeper to see your approach to the more personal bits that I shared. I only asked for that to have a better understanding and an easier way to analyze and confirm/deny my initial bias towards what you wrote in the first place. I probably should have said so, so you wouldn't feel obliged to try and focus on me more. Goes to prove that my Fe is only working for me when consciously engaged and I tend to forget that others can't read me as easily as I think they do.

I'm sorry for causing the misunderstanding and possible hurt feelings on both sides. You're right that I did just that --even if I did it totally unconsciously, it doesn't really excuse me. I now see that I did it out of my silly conviction that to share my personal judgments would be a worthless thing to do. More work on F needed.

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

I do forgive you and please don't worry about it anymore! There are no hard feelings on my part.

[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

[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

[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.

[Number 9 large]

fk socionics tbh

Hardcore

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[ToTheMoon]

Meh, I'm back to square one again, of course. I had already forgotten why I chose SLI and I came here to remember and I almost convinced myself reading my explanation post. Almost. It felt kind of confirmation biased. I got suspicious and skeptical about it. It's too easy to explain different behaviours with functions. I still can't see myself and still feel like too many functions apply to my experience of being myself, whatever that self is because I can't tell anymore (if I was ever able to). Le sigh.

Anyone give me a link to a good, honest and scientific description of functions, please? No psychological/behavioral mumbo-jumbo, please, if at all possible.

[ooo]

sweety, not sure that's possible :/

but have you read Jung's descriptions of the functions? https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

most people in here give most credit to his descriptions, just keep in mind that that stuff was written 100 years ago... and that socionics has developed from that point on, with new descriptions of the functions and the types.

and here's the founder of the socion with an essay, The Dual Nature of Man, where she gives some practical descriptions, how the types look like and other little things. I don't really find her text very useful, for many reasons, but it's one of the best attempts at "objectivity", for sure.


here's a little fav of mine instead, easy and nice http://www.the16types.info/info/index.htm

[Sol]

most people in here give most credit to his descriptions

most people here "give most credit" to Socionics functions descriptions which are more correct and wider than outdated, muddy and partly wrong expanded Jung's texts about functions. what is interesting at Jung - the core terms about functions only, but not his incompetent thinking about consequences of own core theory which he could not even to understand good as mistyped himself and have misleaded by his texts alike you to think yourself as EII while having opposite quadra type IEI - it's much due to the mess about functions his texts do

[ooo]

if even Jung fails about typology.. what do you expect out of every goddamn mortal, Soli?

I'm just human : )

[ToTheMoon]

@ooo
thanks for the links! Good reads. I did read me some Jung recently, and decided to stick to just the function descriptions. Not really sure I follow all of his writings but it is the core, right? I like to think that it's good to know the source of all sources.
@Sol
I find that descriptions vary from author to author. Likely because authors themselves being just one type perceive the other types from their personal bias, no matter how much they try to remain objective. That's the curse of being human. I relate to way too many type descriptions, that's also the curse of being human. That's why I want to look into basics, ie. functions, I believe they would be less muddied by biases than types.

[Sol]

I find that descriptions vary from author to author.

There are 2 authors the core theory of which you should take into account. Jung and Augustinavichiute. The more core the theory is and closer to Jung - the more trust it has.
Anything other - you should not trust and to use until will get the typing and watching people experience (takes years) in types where will see it may be correct, or better when will see objective experiments to proof that sometimes.

What you may read at other authors is interesting only in borders of the said by those 2 above. More in borders of core basics, core definitions said by them.
Those other authors may say the same by better words and without redundant "water" (Jung and Augustinavichiute have weird language), without much of doubtful (Augustinavichiute's texts, partly Jung). You read their popular Socionics books and texts to get the core theory by easier way. All other authors have the same, similar part - it mostly fits to Jung and Augustinavichiute core theory. And the more often you meet something what is similar - the more trust to that you should to have.

So instead of paying attention on differences between authors - you should find and do this for similarities.
It's what I did and this allows me to see the core theory working as should. In general, as nontypes factors are significant and may distort to some degree a behavior. Alike was with me, when my surface behavior since some painful events (and because of LSI father influence) got many traits common for introverts and so I got in tests more often introvertion, had significant and some monthes of doubts about E/I in myself.

You'll can understand own type by IR effects sometimes. Only the correct type may fit to what you'll get. To irrational impressions which people inspire in you. In case you'll be typing people IRL.
SLI is not your type.

[ooo]

@ooo
thanks for the links! Good reads. I did read me some Jung recently, and decided to stick to just the function descriptions. Not really sure I follow all of his writings but it is the core, right? I like to think that it's good to know the source of all sources.

agreed

also, I place functions descriptions before anything else, functions + model A actually. the descriptions of the types, as you've said yourself, tend to be super confusing, I recognize myself in at least 4 profiles (depending on who writes the articles - as you've said yourself, again-), so yeah, if you play within the rules functions + model, you can come close to addressing the right type... I think all the rest is just stereotypes.

good luck in finding out what your socion type is ~

[ToTheMoon]

@Sol
sounds reasonable. I'll try to acquaint myself with more descriptions and look for similarities. I always try to get the gestalt of what something is so it can sink in and I can make sense of it. It can take a bit of time with large and complex theories, though.

Btw, I get what you're saying with the I/E confusion. I started seeing that in people recently and it was eye opening.
@ooo
I agree about stereotypes. We're not that and it can be hard to see ourselves in them. We're all pretty complicated creatures. Also thanks!

[ToTheMoon]

Okay, so I've decided to go it the long way: step by step, bit by bit, fuction by function. If anyone would be willing to dive deep with me and try to make sense of what I'm about to write, I'd really appreciate it.

I thought, let's go by functions. Okay? Okay.

*I'm using this site: http://www.the16types.info/info/functions.htmasthe source of the definitions of functions and I'm adhering to these descriptions when writing about my experiences so please keep that in mind when reading, and, possibly, read the definitions as well as my personal experiences recounted.


**Head to the end of this post for a short summary that I wrote after I saw what a monster this post turned out to be.

This is my understanding of myself as of today, based on the way I understand the theory of socionics as of today.

Si
Definition: Recalling past experiences, remembering detailed data and what it is linkedto. Physical relationships between processes taking place at same time and place -how they affect one’s inner state; physical sensations (sound,smell, etc.), how one feels, health, aesthetics
My experience: I have a bad memory in general, I don't really remember stuff that happened to me a month ago, much less 10 or 20 years ago; I usually dislike dwelling on the past, unless I'm depressed and want to get depressed even more by remembering bad stuff. I'd say I'm aesthetically inclined --I used to work as a graphic designer, I'm also a photographer. I dress well and with a strong personal flavor. My house has a nice interior design. I'm not very creative when it comes to this part, though. I can easily 'get inspired' and copy what others are doing, adjusting the idea to means available to me. I havea hard time imagining what something will look like before it takes its form. I have to see it in reality to be able to judge if it's right or wrong for the situation (think about redecorating a room as an example: I have to move furniture around to see what it will look like before I decide which arrangement is right). I don't pay a lot of attention to my body needs/pysical sensations/health --I'm not worried about these things at all. Where a lot of my (mostly female) friends are concerned with their health and bodily comfort, it doesn't influence me much if I'm wearing uncomfortable clothes or if I feel sick, as long as the discomfort doesn't overpower my mind and the ability to do the things I want to do. Example: I'm about to undergo a double jaw surgery (this means breaking and re-setting my mandible and maxilla and months of healing from it) for my underbite and I'm pretty chill about it.

Se
Definition: Experiencing and noticing the physical world, scanning for visible reactions and relevant data. Outward traits of object - shape, old vs. young, worth or cost, appearance, energy of object, strength, readiness, willpower, mobilization
My experience: I'm not a great observer of qualities and details. Example: I tend to have a hard time distinguishing between two people who look of similar age and build, have similar hair colour andlength and, say, they're both wearing glasses. Unless I have a large amount of time to figure out all their differences, I have to ask someone to tell me if these people are twins or not. Very awkward. I have a hard time being spontaneous or ready to jump to anything on a moment's notice. I find I enojoy just doing things, though, when I give them a chance. When the mood is right and I get invited to go somewhere, do something like hiking or walking around town in good company, I'm all for it and it relaxes me greatly. I have a hard time starting these things on my own, though.

Ni
Definition: Foreseeing implications, conceptualizing, and having images of the future or profound meaning. Relationships between processes (events, actions) separated in time and space -availability of time, length of processes, abstract description of processes, patterns of events, sense of timing, history, sense of when things could happen, sense of danger or safety in future
My experience: Talking about this makes me feel funny and awkward. I don't like to talk about it much because I know it makes me look haughty while I'm not, I just relay my experiences. I used to do astrology and tarot readings professionally and for friends. People came back with stories and would look at me weird, asking where I knew things from–and I didn't really know anything, it was just there. When I gained enough proficiency in my readings, I started to feel uneasy with the level of power they gave me over people's minds so I stopped doing them. I didn't want people to feel controlled by cards or charts (or me!), and they easily do (as do I). Now all of this is to say that I don't believe I'm clairvoyant or a medium or anything remotely like that. I just read people really well on the spot. To the extent that I get some insights and realizations without knowing or really consciously perceiving anything (because low Se). I treat all of this as a sort of organic logic of time and that's how I rationalize it. I also can totally overdo it and miss the point. Or get stuck on the negative way things will play out instead of seeing other possibilities. All in all, I don't know whether I relay on this day to day but it is a large part of my life and has been ever since I was a kid.

Ne
Definition: Inferring relationships, noticing threads of meaning, and scanning for what could be. Potentiality of object - inherent possibilities, purpose, abilities, talents, structure, construction, diagram or internal map of object
My experience: I see potential in people more than in objects, I guess, although with my experience in handicrafts of all kinds, maybe that plays out too? I do see the 'threads of meaning' and constantly keep looking for something beneath the surface: underlaying structures, talents, unused potential waiting to be exploded. I want to help people improve themselves by understanding themselves better. I'm more drawn to depth than to novelty. I see novelty as a means of lightening the mood. I don't currently dislike novelty but it's an attitude I had to learn. I used to be very opposed to different points of view, believing there was only one that was correct. I feared other points of view would destroy my worldview. Now I like to remind myself that they can only expand it and I can decide not to take them with me if I don't like them.

Fi
Definition: Evaluating importance and maintaining congruence. Subjective emotional relationships between objects - attraction vs. repulsion, like vs. dislike, need of each other, love, friendship, antipathy, ethical norms, morals, qualitative properties, subjective judgments.
My experience: As much as I am a people person, it's a risky thing for me to speak out my personal preferences because it can disrupt the general atmosphere of calm with people around me. I've been called cold or lukewarm and like nothing influences me emotionally –which is untrue because I have a lot of emotional response to what's happening outside, I just choose not to act or speak on it. I often view myself as, well, sort of inauthentic: I will bend my personal rules so that harmony is retained within a situation. It doesn't bother me too much, though, because I view it as working for a greater good.
Side note: I've recently rewatched the video I posted in my OP and had an 'aha' moment at the point where I'm answering the question about my values. I spoke a lot about valuing myself being a value in itself because it lets me stay grounded in myself instead of blending in with others --and some of you noticed it and accurately pointed it out as relevant. And it is, with one stipulation that needs explaining. The 'aha' is that I failed to mention in the video that this valuing myself is a very new concept to me and something I learned during my therapy in the last year. I try to adhere to that principle but it's truly hard. My natural inclination is to lose myself in relations with others. I am well aware that this needs balancing because I do this to an unhealthy degree, creating codependent relationships. But still, that bit I said, which sounded so very Fi, is something new to me and something I'm trying to add to my personality. Honestly, the question about my values was super hard for me to answer and I just went for something that sounded good in the situation (and I didn't want to make people wait any longer before I answer). I don't really have a firm hold on what I believe to be my values as they are pretty changeable.

Fe
Definition: Considering others and responding to them. Internal activity of object -internal processes in object, emotional arousal and arousability of object, emotional life, moods, subjective emotional content.
My experience: I see other people and their needs and wants well and instinctively know how to please them. I sort of mold myself to others. It was a big thing during my therapy. I know how to act around people to gain what I want, which 99% of the time is harmony and peace. I do literally everything to avoid conflict: sometimes I will withdraw, other times I will lead (others seem to respond well to my leadership even though I'm not keen on imposing it) but most of all I will choose to neglect my own feelings. It is my natural inclination to look at others first when deciding what should be done. I often forego myself in the process, only to find much later that I actually didn't like my own decision because it made me lose out on something in favor of not shaking the boat and maintaining harmony. Using Fe energizes me and drains me at the same time. If I see my activities bring result and improve others (their mood or their understanding of something), it brings great satisfaction. Aimless socializing can be exhausting unless some conditions are satisfied (like let's hang out and not talk, each does their own thing).

Ti
Definition: Analyzing, categorizing, and figuring out how something works. Objective, outwardly measurable relationships between objects - laws, regulations, rules, categories, quantifiable properties, logic, analysis, belonging, authorship, hierarchy, subordination, objective judgments
My experience: I like to do this. I like to dwell on theories, research different approaches, look for relationships between objects. I think I'm pretty good at this, although, on the other hand, I don't think I could ever come up with my own theory and I'm often way too impatient to come to any conclusions. When researching a theory, I tend to keep things open-ended because I need to see the full picture first in order to decide where something (or I) fit within it. It can be tiring, though, not being able to find closure because the picture just keeps getting bigger and bigger. I can get overwhelmed by it and go away for a certain time to let it sink in and crystallize in me.
I think my process here on the forum is very Ti in nature. I go backand forth, leaving when I get too confused and coming back when curiosity strikes. I like the feeling of closure, though. I like the feeling that I understand how the whole picture looks and where all the pieces of the puzzle fit.

Te
Definition: Organizing, segmenting, sorting, and applying logic and criteria. External activity of object - actions, events (what, how, where), facts, activity or work, algorithms, procedures, logic of objects’ measurable outward behavior
My experience: Not good at this at all. I get totally lost in procedures and the way things should work according to some external rules. I usually intuit everything around me from snippets of data but I can't do that with rules because they defy my intuition. Rules are these huge glass walls around me that I keep bumping into because I can't see them and that makes me look and feel awkward and helpless. I can't intuit the rules, I have to learn them and that's boring –at the same time not knowing them is scary because if I break a rule, it can damage harmony.


**Okay, this was super long, so tl;dr: here are my attempts to categorize how I experience each of the functions.


Strong (strongest to weakest): Fe, Ne/Ni, Ti (?)
Weak (weakest to strongest): Te, Se/Si, Fi


Believe I'm good at it while I actually aren't: Ti
Believe I'm bad at this while I actually aren't: Fi, Si


Strong but wish I was a bit less so: Fe
Wish I was more like this: Fi, Se


Strong (?) but akward about it: Ni
Actually useful but kind of meh: Ne


Dislike when others do this: Fi, Ni
Like when others do this: Se, Ti


Enjoyable and fun: Ti
Risky and exciting: Se
Scary and harsh:Te
Boring and tiresome: Si


Duty: Fe
Relax: Ti, sometimes Se


Used on other people and brings me pleasure: Si, Ni, Fe (I'm everybody's stylist and psychologist)
Used on myself and brings me pleasure: Ti, Si/Se (I spend my days researching stuff without end; when gone bad, I indulge myself with food)

Hard to activate but nice when I do: Se
Hard to activate and dislike when I have to: Te
Easy to activate and nice when I do: Ti, Ni
Easy to activate and can be meh when I do: Fe, Ne


No matter if you read the short or the long version of the post, I would very much appreciate if you could help me make sense of it. Thank you!

[Beautiful sky]

@Sol
sounds reasonable. I'll try to acquaint myself with more descriptions and look for similarities. I always try to get the gestalt of what something is so it can sink in and I can make sense of it. It can take a bit of time with large and complex theories, though.

Btw, I get what you're saying with the I/E confusion. I started seeing that in people recently and it was eye opening.
@ooo
I agree about stereotypes. We're not that and it can be hard to see ourselves in them. We're all pretty complicated creatures. Also thanks!

Can you recall the sensations that you’ve experienced in your mind after you’ve physically experienced them? Like eating chips ice cream sex