FarDraft Video Questionnaire

[FarDraft]

Hi, everyone. I made another video questionnaire since I'm stuck between ILI and LII. While I relate more to the ILI profiles, I relate to many aspects of the LII profiles and there exists IR evidence (Sol's test | might redo it for statistical purposes) which strongly indicates LII over ILI. However, in reality, I have to spend a lot of time with a Ti base (probably LSI) and she is quite different than I, which complicates things, though I understand that a sample size of one is not enough to yield useful conclusions.

I'd like to hear your input since I've just been reading and rereading the profiles, trying to find something useful to help, which isn't very efficient. If it happens to be the case that I have enough information but just need to wait it out, seeing how the real world affects me and me it, then so be it. I'll be patient, especially since I'm pretty young to be typed anyway (17).

Thanks.

By the way, sorry about the quiet volume. I naturally speak quietly, but since I'm talking about personal affairs, I'd rather not let the world hear, lol.

Also, I do certainly value intelligence as well as competence. I should have phrased that better in my video. Competence is the ability to complete a task well, which I like since it leads group projects to be much easier. Intelligence is the ability to solve novel problems with little experience (I know it's more complicated, but that's the definition I'll use for now), which I like in others since it allows for a greater ability to converse intellectually.

Video removed for now. Thank you for your suggestions.

[Lord Pixel]

I mean you got a contingency plan, and you said STEM is "the best way to go", or in other words, it's the Ni-Te way to go. I only watched 3 mins and I'm like how are you not ILI. Also you said competence > intelligence. Sounds like Te > Ti.

[FarDraft]

I mean you got a contingency plan, and you said STEM is "the best way to go", or in other words, it's the Ni-Te way to go. I only watched 3 mins and I'm like how are you not ILI. Also you said competence > intelligence. Sounds like Te > Ti.

The issue I have is that that sounds like the MBTI interpretation of NiTe (contingency planning, mostly) rather than the socionics interpretation. I'm rather certain of being NiTe in MBTI, yet the same can't be said about socionics since neither profile really hones in on planning with respect to type. Gulenko talks about it, but model G tries to reconcile MBTI and socionics, which would naturally lend itself to easier typing for someone who knows MBTI in depth. At the high-level, contingency planning would be linked to rationality, though.

Also, I do certainly value intelligence as well as competence. I should have phrased that better in my video. Competence is the ability to complete a task well, which I like since it leads group projects to be much easier. Intelligence is the ability to solve novel problems with little experience (I know it's more complicated, but that's the definition I'll use for now), which I like in others since it allows for a greater ability to converse intellectually. I'll add this as a footnote in the op.

EDIT: My opinions on planning and socionics have changed at this point.

[Aylen]

It's for two reasons: one, because he's made such accusations, which intrigue me. I'm always worried that I'm not presenting myself as honestly as possible. I have the 3-ish goal of being successful, and I know that if that goal surpasses honesty, then the image you create becomes how you perceive yourself which leads to problems down the line. If he can explain, in detail, why he feels as though I'm presenting an image, then I can take steps to either stop doing those things which lead to the presentation or at least be aware of the nonverbal ticks that I have. Two, he has a lot of experience in typing, which leads me to trust him more than someone who is simply starting out. Perhaps this is an argument by authority fallacy, but I think it's justified when there is no real measure of determining who is trustworthy and who isn't within socionics. People who have many years of observing others are more likely to be consistent with their typings, and so I want to take his opinion into consideration.

Critical thinking is important here since being consistent doesn't mean being correct. Years of experience means nothing if you consistently mistype people based on their physiognomy, or how they make you feel, (some examples) for years.

He tries to spin it so his way is something fabulous which makes him appear much more 3ish than you. 3w2 so/sp specifically since he is highly image focused but spends a lot of time trying to influence others with his personality hypotheses .

He, like many male 3w2s, sees himself and wants to be seen as an 8. You are listening to someone who has not even typed himself correctly. I think it is amusing he posted links to his background recently to reinforce his own typing because I brought it into question. This is all background information that should help in determining someone's credibility. This is more consistent with a 3 than an 8 who would feel no need to prove himself in this way.

If you read enneagram books the distinctions will become clearer. I think with sol it is a bit different. He calls it his intuition. I am pretty sure they are using similar methods but have built up different databases of patterns they use. I agree they are both J types as sol has mentioned so I think there is a common link between them and how they type others. Sol is an E1 though so he prefers to go a step further which is why he will ask people to take his test. He does not cut corners in the same way. He wants more proof that he is correct. As you know 1s, 3s, and 5s are part of the competency triad.

Ones can get into conflicts by being too impatient, rigid, and critical. Ones focus on solving problems by doing what's right. Ones strongly believe that by following the rules, their faith, or their principles they will come to a just and fair solution. Ones feel that they must put their own wants (and feelings) aside in order to remain objective (and autonomous from influence). Ones may appear cold to others and that they don't take into account the feelings of others.

Threes can get into conflicts by being too competitive, insincere, and boastful. Threes focus on being efficient and meeting their goals. When confronted with problems, they can easily set aside their own feelings and focus on the task at hand. In general, Threes want to follow existing structures. However, Threes are pragmatists that will cut corners to realize their goals.

Fives can get into conflicts by being too detached, isolated, and provocative. Fives naturally detach themselves emotionally from the world to be objective. They believe that they have the mental resources to deal with problems. In conflict, Fives will want to withdraw and will think for a while before coming back with a solution, often to the irritation of others. Fives feel that they can solve things by themselves, without relying on others. They may come back with highly original ideas (thinking outside the box). On the other hand, they may waste their time reinventing the wheel.

http://www.fitzel.ca/enneagram/harmonics.html

Here, let me show a description of 3 that he has posted but has not come right out and claimed to have written all by himself yet (there is a reason for this which I will get to in another post) and you tell me how much you relate. Not superficially but at your core.

Threes are independent. They have a goal-oriented nature and a drive towards self-determination. They are tough, resilient competitors who rely mainly on themselves to bounce back from set backs. The core distortion of the three is that they are superior beings for whom admiration is their due. Thus, their naturally high self-esteem is based on an unrealistic assumption about their worth.

Threes are self-confident. They have a self-assured quality. As a result of their confidence, they trust others and take a positive view towards the future. They cultivate a can-do attitude and channel their confidence into action and accomplishment.

Threes are competitive. They are hungry to seek out the admiration that they believe others owe them. They have the "eye of the tiger." They rely on their natural confidence to bounce back from any setback.

Threes are exhibitionist. With successes under their belt, they turn away from their focus on accomplishment and resort to self-promotion and showing off. They look to have their qualities admired. They want to be in the spotlight as much as possible. They find subtle and not so subtle ways to represent themselves as winners. They use their accomplishments to court attention, admirers, and "VIP" benefits.

Three are cocky. The admiration they receive through success cements their own cocksure belief of their superiority. They start to give others the impression that it's a pleasure to do business with the three as if others ought to be willing to take less just to have that luxury. Their former self-confidence is replaced by arrogance. They have begun to rationalize their failures. They spend a lot of time making their failures seem like successes.

Threes are egotistical. They start to view their non-admirers with contempt and don’t feel they should have to win people over or impress them. They begin to live more in fantasy to get away from all the non-admirers they have in reality. They give themselves rights off limits to other mortals. They exercise whatever power they might have in outrageous ways, one-upping others with their special privileges.

Threes are expansive. As they sink more into their fantasy world, their goals and self-image become more expansive. They weave together new fantastic rationales for their circumstances in order to recast themselves as the star. They exaggerate their own powers and come up with intricate rationalizations to feed their self-worth. They put others on notice that they are a superior being and that admiration is their due, that others need to be rolling out the red carpet for them.

Threes are self-aggrandizing. At bottom, their positive outlook is a thin veneer for a despairing life. Threes have no true relation to others and their overconfidence is pierced by reminders of their failings and falseness at every turn. Now having suffered persecution from non-admirers, threes believe they have confirmation of their importance, of their greatness. They put themselves on the pedestal of a messianic figure. They have a sense that history begins and ends with them, as if the transition from b.c. to a.d. occurred at some benchmark in the three's life such as raking in the first million dollars.

Unhealthy Threes are narcissistic. Their grandiosity is flagrant, maintained by disdain for reality, since reality is full of people who don’t share the threes' high sense of worth. Psychopathic revenge equates to a last ditch effort by threes to assert their superiority.

When healthy, Threes come to the realization that alone they are absent and are not ever going to be somebody unless they reach out to others and make genuine connections. Threes start to respect others, value other people’s opinions, and put a check on their fantasies. Healthy threes are also able to look at and question their own self-belief of being a superior individual.

3w2s are gamesmen. Gamesmanship is a stable trait of the 3w2's personality that makes them able competitors in pretty much whatever they set their mind on doing. They don't necessarily have to possess any experience in the field they are competing at in order to win. They compensate for their lack of knowledge with gamesmanship, an art that 3w2s have an innate knowledge of.

3w2s are motivators. They how to get a crowd pumped up. They easily fit the mold of a television personality or super salesperson.

3w2s are political. They know how to work and charm people. They often do well in politics and are good at marketing a brand or idea to people. No other type can represent a belief in the type of overly confident outrageous fashion that the 3w2 can.

3w2s are braggarts. They are loud and proud about their accomplishments and positive qualities. They have an itch to brag and impress about all of the seemingly great things they have done. Their hyper-real self-promotion can make them seem unreal.

3w2s are super-competitive. When their past accomplishments are questioned, they launch into an invective of personal attacks. They are ultra-competitive towards anybody who even remotely expresses a disfavor able opinion towards them. Their modus operandi is to seize upon a small flaw of their opponent and blow it up into a gross mischaracterization of who that person is. They want to outshine everybody.

Proclaiming oneself an authority does not make one an authority. How many self proclaimed experts can you believe when they can't even agree amongst themselves? I don't see authority here at all. Just an authoritative tone. He just speaks confidently about his typings which influences some who seek authority figures. It may also be because you are only 17. Sol also speaks in an authoritative tone but between them they type you as your own dual.

Keep in mind both primarily type celebs when it comes to VI so there is no feedback. He, like sol, does not place much emphasis on what you say about yourself, it is the VI. He already has you doubting how you come off to others. I do not believe you are putting on an intellectual persona. I think it is just how you are.

Anyway, Celebs are people they have no interaction with. They can type them anything without fear of being questioned. If you knew the history you would see the pattern in K4s typings of forum members. Those who were here before his time, he mostly just agrees with their self type, especially if they were already in his quadra and he viewed them as higher status than him. As long as they never questioned his type that is. Questioning him hurts his feelings. I found this out the hard way. He got extremely paranoid about me when I questioned him when I was new.

Also keep in mind he probably hasn't even VI-ed half his typing list of forum members, yet VI is his gold standard. Again, how is that an authority? I know quite a few on his list that he never laid his eyes on. He has static perceptions that rarely change. You will remain on his list as ESE, especially if you question him. He has the forum owner as ESE too which is quite strange. Then there is the matter of him now claiming stackemup enneagram even though he has never confirmed, when asked, if he was actually part of the team who did the typings. More on this in another thread.

I am more confused than intrigued by his typing you ESE. I have an ESE sister. She has been typed ESE by Ashton who was once also seen as an authority here. Sol typed her SEI which was close enough. You do not come off ESE. That would mean you have weak Ti and Ni.

Disclaimer: I have been recently accused of spreading disinformation when it comes to enneagram so you may keep that in mind when reading my post. All I can say to that is to read the books yourself.

I gave up on tritype over a year ago. It was useful but after going back to the root of enneagram I found I no longer needed it. I think if you are going to look into a type then look at the wings and the integration/disintegration points. If you cannot relate to them too on some level then look at the other two types you have in your tritype and do the same. I see others are doing this more lately. If anyone is interested in my reason you can read it here:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/17272-Possible-Enneagram-types-of-forum-members?p=1262990&viewfull=1#post1262990

[Adam Strange]

Well, @FarDraft, from your user name and your convos in chat and the phrasing of the writing in your posts, you resemble most of the LII's whom I know and none of the ILI's whom I know.

However, you don't look like any of those LII's, but instead rather strongly resemble a couple of the ILI's. Except for the smiling. ILI's don't smile very much.

I actually place a lot of faith in both of these typing methods and I'm puzzled that they so strongly disagree in your case.

It might be time to return to the basics of Socionics and try to determine which functions you prefer to use.

[FarDraft]

Well, @FarDraft, from your user name and your convos in chat and the phrasing of the writing in your posts, you resemble most of the LII's whom I know and none of the ILI's whom I know.

However, you don't look like any of those LII's, but instead rather strongly resemble a couple of the ILI's. Except for the smiling. ILI's don't smile very much.

I actually place a lot of faith in both of these typing methods and I'm puzzled that they so strongly disagree in your case.

It might be time to return to the basics of Socionics and try to determine which functions you prefer to use.

Well that's unfortunate. Could it be that I'm younger than most people you meet and so VI isn't as effective? If not, then, yeah, back to the drawing board.

[Adam Strange]

Well that's unfortunate. Could it be that I'm younger than most people you meet and so VI isn't as effective? If not, then, yeah, back to the drawing board.

Actually, my database of faces for VI mainly consists of people I've seen on this site, and in the pictures and videos of people whom the people here post as type examples. This actually has made it harder for me to VI-type people who are much older than 30. With older people, I tend to go by their continuous voice and body movements. Often I don't "see" which type they are for months, and then one day it'll click.

In any case, I'm slowly broadening out and I'm seeing that there are some things in people's faces that don't change much with age, assuming that they aren't mental, starving, derelict or extremely obese.

IMO, your "voice", by which I mean the patterns in your speech, seems to be extremely LII. The main features are long sentence lengths, elaborate and lengthy paragraphs, a desire to be precise and correct, and a general coolness and an aversion to engaging in emotional or triggering behavior that I associate with LII's.

Contrast that with Capitalist Pig's succinct *farts* in chat, or his greeting to a new member which said "Whose sock puppet are you?" Right out of the door, the ILI's that I know are right in your face. The LII's are more circumspect.

But, that's just my impression. As I said, typing based on preferred functions is probably best, and as a Te user rather than a Ti-user, I'm not great at that.

[FarDraft]

Actually, my database of faces for VI mainly consists of people I've seen on this site, and in the pictures and videos of people whom the people here post as type examples. This actually has made it harder for me to VI-type people who are much older than 30. With older people, I tend to go by their continuous voice and body movements. Often I don't "see" which type they are for months, and then one day it'll click.

In any case, I'm slowly broadening out and I'm seeing that there are some things in people's faces that don't change much with age, assuming that they aren't mental, starving, derelict or extremely obese.

IMO, your "voice", by which I mean the patterns in your speech, seems to be extremely LII. The main features are long sentence lengths, elaborate and lengthy paragraphs, a desire to be precise and correct, and a general coolness and an aversion to engaging in emotional or triggering behavior that I associate with LII's.

Contrast that with Capitalist Pig's succinct *farts* in chat, or his greeting to a new member which said "Whose sock puppet are you?" Right out of the door, the ILI's that I know are right in your face. The LII's are more circumspect.

But, that's just my impression. As I said, typing based on preferred functions is probably best, and as a Te user rather than a Ti-user, I'm not great at that.

Ok, then. My initial thought when you said that ILI's are right in your face was the introduction of L from death note. If you haven't seen it, after the detectives reveal their identities, he pretends to shoot them and says "BANG! If I were Kira [Killer] you would be dead by now, Mr. Soichiro Yagami". I'm pretty convinced he's ILI, and that example seems to highlight the ILI "speech nature", if I'm understanding correctly. I'm not really like that. Maybe if I get to know you better, I'd be more like that, but I'm much more distant from from the onset.

[Adam Strange]

Ok, then. My initial thought when you said that ILI's are right in your face was the introduction of L from death note. If you haven't seen it, after the detectives reveal their identities, he pretends to shoot them and says "BANG! If I were Kira [Killer] you would be dead by now, Mr. Soichiro Yagami". I'm pretty convinced he's ILI, and that example seems to highlight the ILI "speech nature", if I'm understanding correctly. I'm not really like that. Maybe if I get to know you better, I'd be more like that, but I'm much more distant from from the onset.

It occurs to me that this illustrates the difference between Se-seeking and Si-seeking. Se-valuers are going to deal in (seek out, express, demonstrate) personal power relationships, and Si-valuers are going to deal in personal comfort relationships.

"L", as you described him, is presenting Se personal force ("bang") with Ni "If I were Kira", but his use of Se is clumsy and disorienting to those he's trying to impress. His imaginative use of Ni is more effective as an argument.
An Se-dom wouldn't threaten. They would just act.

[myresearch]

I think you are LII-Ti , I watched your video just out of curiosity, I thought you were ILI. 538 tritype =triple competence,so I don't think that valuing competence over intelligence means necessarily Te>Ti. I think your video is dominated by Ti, sure I can see some Ni and little bit Ne, Te, however I think you process everything for the sake of Ti.

[FarDraft]

I think you are LII-Ti , I watched your video just out of curiosity, I thought you were ILI. 538 tritype =triple competence,so I don't think that valuing competence over intelligence means necessarily Te>Ti. I think your video is dominated by Ti, sure I can see some Ni and little bit Ne, Te, however I think you process everything for the sake of Ti.

Triple competence is actually 531 but double competence is plenty. And I'm relatively uncertain about my gut fix anyways, so I could indeed be triple competence. Do you mind giving some examples of my cognition being dominated by Ti? What, in particular, do you see is Ti? (In case it isn't obvious, I'm trying to edge out your typing methods as much as I am trying to understand how you think).

That being said, if I am indeed LII, I'd almost certainly be Ti subtype despite the irrational aspects of my personality. It's between LII-Ti and ILI-Te, mostly.

[myresearch]

Triple competence is actually 531 but double competence is plenty. And I'm relatively uncertain about my gut fix anyways, so I could indeed be triple competence. Do you mind giving some examples of my cognition being dominated by Ti? What, in particular, do you see is Ti? (In case it isn't obvious, I'm trying to edge out your typing methods as much as I am trying to understand how you think).

Everyone can say anything to describe themselves, I think that's why it is important to see how did they say it. Your sentences are built in Ti fashion, they are logically correct, consistent rather than giving factual information. I actually didn't see you giving factual information just to sake of giving factual information, however, of course you used Te for the sake of Ti and this is how a person uses their ignoring function.

Each IE comes up with different intonation, you can analyze them according to +/- signs and their positions. Each persons behave differently when they process these IEs. You can observe and detect the similarities. I find it hard to describe, I can say that ILI sounds much more concrete than you, you sound more complex than ILI. Between I think I sound more vague than you. If I have to give example to visual things, you look upwards when you try to catch your thoughts, sometimes you loose track, you seem more expressive when you talk about certain things that you find interesting.

I am also going to mention about our differences since I think we share the same type. My eyes moves/dart around much more often, I seem more expressive/playful/welcoming compared to you. I think LIIs who have 7 in their tritypes seem more expressive/playful/welcoming than me.

[Kill4Me]

ESE-Fe 3w4 so/sx...your energy is too glib for a 5w6.

[FarDraft]

ESE-Fe 3w4 so/sx...your energy is too glib for a 5w6.

Are you serious?
Edit: I'll keep an open mind, but I severely doubt it.

[FarDraft]

Everyone can say anything to describe themselves, I think that's why it is important to see how did they say it. Your sentences are built in Ti fashion, they are logically correct, consistent rather than giving factual information. I actually didn't see you giving factual information just to sake of giving factual information, however, of course you used Te for the sake of Ti and this is how a person uses their ignoring function.

Each IE comes up with different intonation, you can analyze them according to +/- signs and their positions. Each persons behave differently when they process these IEs. You can observe and detect the similarities. I find it hard to describe, I can say that ILI sounds much more concrete than you, you sound more complex than ILI. Between I think I sound more vague than you. If I have to give example to visual things, you look upwards when you try to catch your thoughts, sometimes you loose track, you seem more expressive when you talk about certain things that you find interesting.

I am also going to mention about our differences since I think we share the same type. My eyes moves/dart around much more often, I seem more expressive/playful/welcoming compared to you. I think LIIs who have 7 in their tritypes seem more expressive/playful/welcoming than me.

I'm not sure how I could have given factual information in the video in the first place. But I guess that if I were Te ego, I wouldn't figured out a way. Your comments make sense to me. However, like before, I'm conflicted since LIIs ignore Te and have alpha rather than gamma values. However, I don't think I ignore Te and my values have been stereotypically gamma since I was a kid, with alpha influence coming as I began to figure out what I liked. I also don't relate to a lot of things many Ti users say. For example, a few ILEs were saying how they disdain the mandatory physics lab course that they must take next year. They say "why do we need experiments? We can just do math!" I know it was half-joking, but I don't have that sentiment at all. Experiment and real-world facts are the basis by which we determine truth in systems that are not axiomatic. However, perhaps that's not Te valuing but just my being reasonable.

If my type is LII, then the conclusions I would have to come to are that 1) general quadra values are less important than originally thought, 2) the ignoring function isn't truly "ignored". I'll look into those two aspects before I make a decision.

All that being said, if the cognitive basis of socionics is to be respected, then unconscious actions must be taken into consideration - that includes writing/speaking style. That evidence points strongly towards 4D Ti, though I need to look at the precise usage of the demonstrative function to be certain about it being valued.

[para]

From how/what you write on the forum and your emotional distance and demeanour, LII. Take it with a cupful of salt.

PS: Since it seems that you've been grumbling about your j/p preference, catalysed by the VI of Sol, maybe look at some users which he has characterised as p type (he types me SLI, and i agree with him at the current moment). Comparing my expression to yours, i am a bit less controlled physically, i'm less specific and i circulate more in speech and thought, i usually don't separate my internal states from myself and i sit in melancholia, i repeat myself and hang on to words not bound by rationality or rules to a certain extent, and i am 'drooping', something usually seen as characteristic of Ip types.

You sit upright, you are focused (albeit distant, Ti-Ne?), you seem a bit intense and rigid. (to me)
You speak with confidence and clarity, bound by regulations and systematicity, essence and it's relation to each other are not blurred, there is not much questioning or doubt (something more common in Ip types, afaik), although openness and multifacetedness is very clear. (Ne ego) Investigation is separated, not a part of you.
You are clean looking and have an ordered appearance (in contrast, Ip types are often too internal to notice such)
You bear the format, self-control and regulation of a theoretical Ij type, and logic+intuition is pretty apparent.

[FarDraft]

From how you write on the forum and your general demeanour, LII. Take it with a cupful of salt.

Ok, thanks. I will take the salt and eat it, dying from hypernatremia shortly thereafter.

EDIT: Now that you've edited your post. I take most of what you say as compliments, which could be an indication of Ij preferences, and I have to relate with pretty much all that you say. I am very precise and systematic in the way that I speak so as to not miss anything important or misrepresent my own ideas. My appearance fluctuates. I prefer my hair long, but I don't know how to deal with it, meaning that it tends to mess itself up naturally. I am very planned and structured, though my mood can influence my productivity during the day, as I mentioned in the video. I'm very detached from others and prefer my speech be impersonal since I don't like to get too close to others.

Here's where it gets messy. My speech is naturally more confident than I am. I narrow down possibilities by considering more information, but I can't be certain about it since that comes when the information fits together. My sister told me when I was about 12 that I tend to speak too impersonally/forcefully. For example, when ordering food, I didn't smile or say please. No clue how that fits in, but it exists.

Your analysis provides me great insight. It has definitely been helpful.

[para]

Ok, thanks. I will take the salt and eat it, dying from hypernatremia shortly thereafter.

I updated my post - looks like you're getting a second helping then. Enjoy.

Also you sound like a fairly reflected and purposeful individual, and you usually are constructive and systematic forum-wise. It's nice to see (i can't reach quite the same ideal, as your constructiveness is far too inclusive and helpful to others for my liking ).

[Moou]

Between the two I would think ILI. Definitely some sort of introverted thinker though.

[FarDraft]

Between the two I would think ILI. Definitely some sort of introverted thinker though.

Yeah, IXTx I have no doubt at this point. Most likely logical subtype. What points you towards ILI over LII? Impression? Specific words? I'm starting to be more convinced of LII, so I'd like to know.

[Moou]

Yeah, IXTx I have no doubt at this point. Most likely logical subtype. What points you towards ILI over LII? Impression? Specific words? I'm starting to be more convinced of LII, so I'd like to know.

Visually, you don't look LII to me, but you do look similar to many people I've seen typed as ILI. Just my first impression though, make of that what you will.

[FarDraft]

Visually, you don't look LII to me, but you do look similar to many people I've seen typed as ILI. Just my first impression though, make of that what you will.

So two people have said I look like ILI (you and Adam). Sol says I look LII, though. Interesting. I'll see how to integrate VI as I learn more about it. I'm a complete noob in that area.

[The Reality Denialist]

critical and detailed Sounds ILI. Diverse interest on potential capitalization even more like ILI. Uneven performance depending on mood points towards irrationality. Doubts and wants to become stronger confident more like ILI. As in generating new views you seem to be quite stifled as you want to be sure. Sardonic etc. .



ILI af.

[FarDraft]

critical and detailed Sounds ILI. Diverse interest on potential capitalization even more like ILI. Uneven performance depending on mood points towards irrationality. Doubts and wants to become stronger confident more like ILI. As in generating new views you seem to be quite stifled as you want to be sure. Sardonic etc. .



ILI af.

I'd agree with almost everything, though I'm not sure how much I overstated the "wanting to become more confident" part. I suck at talking to people informally, which is mainly what I meant. It makes it difficult for me to make friends or connections with the opposite sex, which I know will haunt me down the line. I also have frequent doubts about my own abilities and so a push from someone to show me that I don't completely suck is usually what it takes. This sounds like Se DS rather than PoLR, I realize. My Taekwondo coach was most likely some gamma extrovert, and she continually pushed me to believe in myself and crap. Same with my mother, but she's probably some Fe base.

[The Reality Denialist]

I get the impression from LII's that they want protection. Lots of protection. And cheery people.

[Aylen]

Since K4 rarely feels inclined to explain his typings you can get a general idea of his method in these two posts. @FarDraft @queentiger

VI has already been proven with samples of identical twins. Identical twins have the same micro-expressions. To date, opponents of VI have not been able to disprove VI by showing examples of identical twins where the vibe is totally different. I put the challenge out there but nobody has been able to meet it. You will never find a set of identical twins where one vibes like henry kissinger and the other vibes like Jim Carrey. More than that, identical twins tend to know what the other is thinking and they can easily finish each other's thoughts/sentences. It goes beyond just a sibling bond.

Not every person of the same type will be identical twins, of course. So it becomes a question of where to draw the line. That's where VI has to be tempered by common sense. The Intelligent Design Method of Typing is just that, VI + Common Sense. That's where reading up on these people is a good way to find out where one type ends and another begins. You can find a chain of VI proofs in the beta examples thread, where I build one example off previous examples. So very often, the same personality markers appear in people that VI alike. VI is also effective because it undercuts all those socially constructed differences/similarities between people, like race, gender, status, occupation. It also undercuts other factors such as differences in IQ.

VI opponents point out that identical twins can often be very different from each other and identical twins often tout their differences. But the desire to individuate is very common in human nature. It may be more of a hang up for identical twins such that they can develop an aversion to their replica. So they find areas of differences, and intentionally cultivate areas of differences, from their twin as if to emphasize that they are not like each other. In other words, they attempt to exert conscious control over their personality in order to distinguish themselves from their twin. And some can be successful at it. But mother nature has the final word on it....the vibe doesn't lie, as vibe and micro-expressions speak more directly to the nature of your personality.

I also use the Open Borders Approach, another one I coined. I am speaking to two fundamentally different views of Socionics.

The Open Borders approach dissolves the Quadra Values mythology….”drains the swamp.” Socionics New Wave still recognizes Quadras but in the same way that England recognizes the royal family. We will call them King and Queen but they don’t have any actual power. Although there may be some values loosely associated with each quadra, there's absolutely no rational basis for treating Quadra Values as an axiomatic principle of Socionics. It's ludicrous to use it as starting point.

The Closed Borders view is the one that is held by pretty much every Socionics School of Thought except for Socionics New Wave. That is, the view – religiously held by some -- that there is such a thing as Quadra Values and that one can or should begin with quadra when typing. So in the classic methodology, first you type Quadra based on Quadra values, whatever that means, and then you narrow it down by one of four types, either through VI or one of the less objective, less serious methods of typing.

Consequently, the VI breakdown for each Socionics type laid down by Socionics New Wave is much better than the breakdown proferred by Socionics.Com. Even though both schools of thought recognize that VI is superior to all other methods of typing, pinterest.com/socionics's breakdown is not inhibited by a Closed Borders Approach. The Open/Closed Borders difference may not be the precise or only reason why the New Wave breakdown is better. However, I can affirmatively state that the New Wave breakdown would not have come out so great if it had been based in the more arbitrary Closed Borders Method.

[FarDraft]

Since K4 rarely feels inclined to explain his typings you can get a general idea of his method in these two posts. @FarDraft @queentiger

Thanks for posting this. It seems as though his method claims to severely undercut the cognitive basis of socionics, meaning that any of the points brought up in this thread in favour of ILI or LII wouldn't shift his typing. If he doesn't respond to my response, I might try again or pm him since he made some pretty serious accusations. It goes beyond typing me something that doesn't make sense into the realm of creating pretences for some false narrative. I demand answers. If that doesn't work, then I'll have no choice but to denounce his typing as ludicrous, especially when faced with a mountain of opposing evidence. We'll see what happens.

[QueenTiger666]

Thanks for posting this. It seems as though his method severely undercuts the cognitive basis of socionics, meaning that any of the points brought up in this thread in favour of ILI or LII wouldn't shift his typing. If he doesn't respond to my response, I might try again or pm him since he made some pretty serious accusations. It goes beyond typing me something that doesn't make sense into the realm of creating pretences for some false narrative. I demand answers. If that doesn't work, then I'll have no choice but to denounce his typing as ludicrous, especially when faced with a mountain of opposing evidence. We'll see what happens.

Haha you're a lot more reluctant to denounce his typing as ludicrous than me. I've already done so lol. VI is mostly bs imo anyway.

[FarDraft]

Haha you're a lot more reluctant to denounce his typing as ludicrous than me. I've already done so lol. VI is mostly bs imo anyway.

It's for two reasons: one, because he's made such accusations, which intrigue me. I'm always worried that I'm not presenting myself as honestly as possible. I have the 3-ish goal of being successful, and I know that if that goal surpasses honesty, then the image you create becomes how you perceive yourself which leads to problems down the line. If he can explain, in detail, why he feels as though I'm presenting an image, then I can take steps to either stop doing those things which lead to the presentation or at least be aware of the nonverbal ticks that I have. Two, he has a lot of experience in typing, which leads me to trust him more than someone who is simply starting out. Perhaps this is an argument by authority fallacy, but I think it's justified when there is no real measure of determining who is trustworthy and who isn't within socionics. People who have many years of observing others are more likely to be consistent with their typings, and so I want to take his opinion into consideration.

EDIT: It's the same reason I considered Sol's opinion seriously. His typing was much less radical than this one (LII), but it was still very firm and based upon things I found to either be untrue or minor. I knew there were aspects of truth within it, though, since the evidence was consistent. It's only reasonable to do the same with this typing unless the evidence is fringe or the explanations are faulty.

[QueenTiger666]

It's for two reasons: one, because he's made such accusations, which intrigue me. I'm always worried that I'm not presenting myself as honestly as possible. I have the 3-ish goal of being successful, and I know that if that goal surpasses honesty, then the image you create becomes how you perceive yourself which leads to problems down the line. If he can explain, in detail, why he feels as though I'm presenting an image, then I can take steps to either stop doing those things which lead to the presentation or at least be aware of the nonverbal ticks that I have. Two, he has a lot of experience in typing, which leads me to trust him more than someone who is simply starting out. Perhaps this is an argument by authority fallacy, but I think it's justified when there is no real measure of determining who is trustworthy and who isn't within socionics. People who have many years of observing others are more likely to be consistent with their typings, and so I want to take his opinion into consideration.

Well I did notice you mentioned 3, 1 and 5 as you identifying with in one of your posts so maybe you are core 5 with 3 and 1 also in your tritype?

[Ryan]

I still think LII>ILI. You already know my opinion so I will make this short and focus on things that interested me and no one commented on.

Your comments regarding what you need help with seems Fe seeking, or at least you seem to value Fe. Confidence, morale boosting, yelling, etc. I also remember you saying that you like public speaking and how much you engage in it. According to Gulenko, LII has trainable ethics, while ILI has trainable sensing.

You said you get annoyed by false bravery, impulsive and reckless behavior. That doesn't sound like Se-valuing to me.

I think you are right to consider Gamma. I know I do sometimes. But it's hard for me to see myself as ILI, I did consider LIE. I actually get typed ENTJ in MBTI sometimes. I relate to the business and ambitious side of Gamma a lot. I do think quadra values are important in the overall picture, but when you are considering two types that have similar strengths focusing on valued functions doesn't make sense, especially when those functions are strong in both types.

The only thing I can add here is the fact that both Gamma and Alpha are democratic and individualistic quadras. So I have an appreciation for a lot of Gamma values that are not readily apparent.

I know why you think the ignoring function is confusing and I've seen people do the same mistake. You have to remember Model A is a mental model. The ignoring function is also called the observing or limiting function. The thing to take away from that, is a person who has a Te ignoring function doesn't accept inputs from other people in that form, or does it reluctantly and in small amounts.

They will however use the function themselves and apply a different approach, usually in tandem with Ti. Gulneko mentions an example of that but he attributes it to static vs dynamic. He says ILIs have better memory and command of facts, and they have an associative memory. While LIIs incorporate facts in a scheme or system of some sort, a Kinesthetic memory. LIIs can resist information that doesn't coincide with their understanding.

So the ignoring function is strong and a person will usually use it a lot to support their base function. They are two sides of the same coin. The ignoring function is just much more conservative in terms of accepting outside input. That is how I see it.

For reference: Gulenko made a video about LII vs ILI

[FarDraft]

I still think LII>ILI. You already know my opinion so I will make this short and focus on things that interested me and no one commented on.

Your comments regarding what you need help with seems Fe seeking, or at least you seem to value Fe. Confidence, morale boosting, yelling, etc. I also remember you saying that you like public speaking and how much you engage in it. According to Gulenko, LII has trainable ethics, while ILI has trainable sensing.

You said you get annoyed by false bravery, impulsive and reckless behavior. That doesn't sound like Se-valuing to me.

I think you are right to consider Gamma. I know I do sometimes. But it's hard for me to see myself as ILI, I did consider LIE. I actually get typed ENTJ in MBTI sometimes. I relate to the business and ambitious side of Gamma a lot. I do think quadra values are important in the overall picture, but when you are considering two types that have similar strengths focusing on valued functions doesn't make sense, especially when those functions are strong in both types.

The only thing I can add here is the fact that both Gamma and Alpha are democratic and individualistic quadras. So I have an appreciation for a lot of Gamma values that are not readily apparent.

I know why you think the ignoring function is confusing and I've seen people do the same mistake. You have to remember Model A is a mental model. The ignoring function is also called the observing or limiting function. The thing to take away from that, is a person who has a Te ignoring function doesn't accept inputs from other people in that form, or does it reluctantly and in small amounts.

They will however use the function themselves and apply a different approach, usually in tandem with Ti. Gulneko mentions an example of that but he attributes it to static vs dynamic. He says ILIs have better memory and command of facts, and they have an associative memory. While LIIs incorporate facts in a scheme or system of some sort, a Kinesthetic memory. LIIs can resist information that doesn't coincide with their understanding.

So the ignoring function is strong and a person will usually use it a lot to support their base function. They are two sides of the same coin. The ignoring function is just much more conservative in terms of accepting outside input. That is how I see it.

For reference: Gulenko made a video about LII vs ILI

Thanks for the further comments. Most of what you've written makes sense to me but three things don't. First, morale-boosting, confidence, yelling, etc. seems more like Se DS rather than Fe. I thought alpha SFs would be more sympathetic or comforting. Second, disliking reckless behaviour seems common for both ILI and LII. In fact, many descriptions talk about how the ILI consistently demands prudence from others because he finds that most actions lack sufficient foresight. This is the main reason why he's "the skeptic/critic", in the first place. Third, you say "when you are considering two types that have similar strengths focusing on valued functions doesn't make sense, especially when those functions are strong in both types." However, this seems to me like exactly what you should do since both types are strong in the same functions and so the difference in value is what sets them a part. For example, while both ILI and LII have 4D Ti, meaning that understanding logical systems should come with less difficulty for both, LIIs use Ti has their main means of processing information whereas ILIs don't. The difference in value distinguishes the two types.

The way I use Te is as a tool for problem solving. I learn information I think to be useful to solve a problem and then I apply it. Oftentimes, this means that I initially don't have a firm understanding of where the information comes from, but I tend to investigate that on my own time, so that I can generalize the information to other situations (with precision kept in mind, of course). That, to me, sounds like Te serving Ti, which indicates LII. However, I've read the reddit summary of a video Gulenko made with Ben Vaserlan on the differences between ILI and LII, and it says that an ILI is focused on problem solving whereas an LII is focused on theory-building. If that's the case, then I have no doubt about being ILI since theory-building is secondary to me in nearly all respects. Moreover, my very first "type me" thread (since deleted, but I've saved a copy) was asking about where associative memories fit into the theory of socionics since I had realized that my memory is very associative. That coincidence provides evidence for ILI as well.

Since model G is trying to reconcile MBTI with socionics (with INTJ = ILI and INTP = LII; Gulenko makes this clear in the model G type diagrams), it would only make sense for me to type ILI in model G since I relate to INTJ more so than INTP in MBTI. However, that system isn't model A, and so I don't think my TIM should be based on it.

The case for LII has been made very clear to me at this point by you and others. Thanks for that. My next source of theoretical investigation lies in the id block since that seems to be where a lot of my confusion lies, as you noted about the ignoring function. Practically speaking, I'll probably wait to type myself since I haven't met enough SEEs or ESEs to type myself on the basis of IR. That would be a very important factor to consider. If I do type myself ILI, I'd have to be an unusually rational one, which is what leads me to doubt the typing in the first place. To justify that, I'd probably have to apply DCNH, being the normalizing subtype, and I have no clue how reliable that theory is.

[Exodus]

I don't really see why this is necessary. Yes, you do use Ti quite a bit and are interested in a lot of the same areas an LII would be. Yet, you clearly preferred Se in your other video questionnaire. There was no reason to think you value Fe or Si. So the only reason there should be any kind of confusion is if quadra values simply aren't being considered properly.

Well, @FarDraft, from your user name and your convos in chat and the phrasing of the writing in your posts, you resemble most of the LII's whom I know and none of the ILI's whom I know.

However, you don't look like any of those LII's, but instead rather strongly resemble a couple of the ILI's. Except for the smiling. ILI's don't smile very much.

I actually place a lot of faith in both of these typing methods and I'm puzzled that they so strongly disagree in your case.

It might be time to return to the basics of Socionics and try to determine which functions you prefer to use.

I really wish you would stop doing this. Comparing people to people you know isn't a valid argument, especially when we have no reason to think you're typing those other people correctly in the first place. That and VI (essentially another example of comparison typing) are pretty much your only typing methods. I already gave a comprehensive "basics of socionics" answer in the other thread. (But careful, this method requires actually watching more than 30 seconds of the video.)

[FarDraft]

I don't really see why this is necessary. Yes, you do use Ti quite a bit and are interested in a lot of the same areas an LII would be. Yet, you clearly preferred Se in your other video questionnaire. There was no reason to think you value Fe or Si. So the only reason there should be any kind of confusion is if quadra values simply aren't being considered properly.

The main reason I felt it was necessary is because the idea of "valued" isn't clear to me. Is value a conscious thing? Or is it unconscious? I know that ego functions are conscious whereas id functions are unconscious, but it isn't clear to me whether that implies that you use your id functions unconsciously or whether you develop them unconsciously (both could be a possibility). The reason why that's important is because my writing/speech patterns are heavily Ti without my trying. I mean, yes, I do structure my sentences and apply correct grammatical rules, but the vast majority of my speaking/writing is saying what I "feel" sounds right. I don't know if this means I unconsciously value Ti or if I'm just using Ti without valuing it. I think there's a lot of subtlety there that I have to consider.

Another reason for creating another video was that I've had to spend copious amounts of time with who I strongly suspect to be an LSI. While I thought I was Se valuing, her excessive use of Se seems incredibly foolish to me. For example, she works incredibly fast, making many mistakes, but she dislikes going through things slowly and carefully because it's "boring". Secondly, she's very head-strong and immediately conclusive without waiting for more information to be explained. For example, in some of my classes, when a professor makes an assumption without explaining it, she becomes immediately annoyed while my reaction is to wait and see if it's going to be explained. If it isn't, then I'll ask a question. I had a friend in high school who was similar to this, though he made fewer mistakes since he's been trained for a long time to be very detail-oriented.

I find these traits annoying because too many judgements are being made too quickly, meaning that a number of them are likely to be pre-emptive, based on too little information, or down-right false since the user made an error in logic. If the SEE is anything like this, then I can't be certain that they're my dual.

I hope this clears things up.

[Exodus]

The main reason I felt it was necessary is because the idea of "valued" isn't clear to me. Is value a conscious thing? Or is it unconscious? I know that ego functions are conscious whereas id functions are unconscious, but it isn't clear to me whether that implies that you use your id functions unconsciously or whether you develop them unconsciously (both could be a possibility). The reason why that's important is because my writing/speech patterns are heavily Ti without my trying. I mean, yes, I do structure my sentences and apply correct grammatical rules, but the vast majority of my speaking/writing is saying what I "feel" sounds right. I don't know if this means I unconsciously value Ti or if I'm just using Ti without valuing it. I think there's a lot of subtlety there that I have to consider.

Put it this way: the leading function is "the" value, it's what everything else is essentially subordinate to.

On the other hand, the vulnerable function is strongly devalued, to the point where we don't (by default) see any place for it in the world, so it's unlikely to be consciously expressed in our values.

It's more ambiguous with other functions. The demonstrative function is prioritized to a degree, often quite a bit, although it "shares space" with the creative function. The suggestive function can be neglected too, to the point where it isn't very visible as a value, at least in our behavior. I don't put a lot of stock in the "conscious/unconscious" interpretation either, it doesn't really hold up IME.

Another reason for creating another video was that I've had to spend copious amounts of time with who I strongly suspect to be an LSI. While I thought I was Se valuing, her excessive use of Se seems incredibly foolish to me. For example, she works incredibly fast, making many mistakes, but she dislikes going through things slowly and carefully because it's "boring". Secondly, she's very head-strong and immediately conclusive without waiting for more information to be explained. For example, in some of my classes, when a professor makes an assumption without explaining it, she becomes immediately annoyed while my reaction is to wait and see if it's going to be explained. If it isn't, then I'll ask a question. I had a friend in high school who was similar to this, though he made fewer mistakes since he's been trained for a long time to be very detail-oriented.

I find these traits annoying because too many judgements are being made too quickly, meaning that a number of them are likely to be pre-emptive, based on too little information, or down-right false since the user made an error in logic. If the SEE is anything like this, then I can't be certain that they're my dual.

It seems to me what you are really criticizing here is the lack of Ni (and preference for Ti > Te, in the sense of coming to conclusions quickly) rather than the presence of Se -- which did come out before in how you described your values. It isn't outside the realm of possibility for someone to criticize their dual's weaknesses. This is why I prefer to look at how someone's psyche works internally; the IM element relationships are clearer there, in terms of priorities and how you see the world.

[FarDraft]

Critical thinking is important here since being consistent doesn't mean being correct. Years of experience means nothing if you consistently mistype people based on their physiognomy, or how they make you feel, (some examples) for years.

He tries to spin it so his way is something fabulous which makes him appear much more 3ish than you. 3w2 so/sp specifically since he is highly image focused but spends a lot of time trying to influence others with his personality hypotheses .

He, like many male 3w2s, sees himself and wants to be seen as an 8. You are listening to someone who has not even typed himself correctly. I think it is amusing he posted links to his background recently to reinforce his own typing because I brought it into question. This is all background information that should help in determining someone's credibility. This is more consistent with a 3 than an 8 who would feel no need to prove himself in this way.

If you read enneagram books the distinctions will become clearer. I think with sol it is a bit different. He calls it his intuition. I am pretty sure they are using similar methods but have built up different databases of patterns they use. I agree they are both J types as sol has mentioned so I think there is a common link between them and how they type others. Sol is an E1 though so he prefers to go a step further which is why he will ask people to take his test. He does not cut corners in the same way. He wants more proof that he is correct. As you know 1s, 3s, and 5s are part of the competency triad.





Here, let me show a description of 3 that he has posted but has not come right out and claimed to have written all by himself yet (there is a reason for this which I will get to in another post) and you tell me how much you relate. Not superficially but at your core.



Proclaiming oneself an authority does not make one an authority. How many self proclaimed experts can you believe when they can't even agree amongst themselves? I don't see authority here at all. Just an authoritative tone. He just speaks confidently about his typings which influences some who seek authority figures. It may also be because you are only 17. Sol also speaks in an authoritative tone but between them they type you as your own dual.

Keep in mind both primarily type celebs when it comes to VI so there is no feedback. He, like sol, does not place much emphasis on what you say about yourself, it is the VI. He already has you doubting how you come off to others. I do not believe you are putting on an intellectual persona. I think it is just how you are.

Anyway, Celebs are people they have no interaction with. They can type them anything without fear of being questioned. If you knew the history you would see the pattern in K4s typings of forum members. Those who were here before his time, he mostly just agrees with their self type, especially if they were already in his quadra and he viewed them as higher status than him. As long as they never questioned his type that is. Questioning him hurts his feelings. I found this out the hard way. He got extremely paranoid about me when I questioned him when I was new.

Also keep in mind he probably hasn't even VI-ed half his typing list of forum members, yet VI is his gold standard. Again, how is that an authority? I know quite a few on his list that he never laid his eyes on. He has static perceptions that rarely change. You will remain on his list as ESE, especially if you question him. He has the forum owner as ESE too which is quite strange. Then there is the matter of him now claiming stackemup enneagram even though he has never confirmed, when asked, if he was actually part of the team who did the typings. More on this in another thread.

I am more confused than intrigued by his typing you ESE. I have an ESE sister. She has been typed ESE by Ashton who was once also seen as an authority here. Sol typed her SEI which was close enough. You do not come off ESE. That would mean you have weak Ti and Ni.

Disclaimer: I have been recently accused of spreading disinformation when it comes to enneagram so you may keep that in mind when reading my post. All I can say to that is to read the books yourself.

I gave up on tritype over a year ago. It was useful but after going back to the root of enneagram I found I no longer needed it. I think if you are going to look into a type then look at the wings and the integration/disintegration points. If you cannot relate to them too on some level then look at the other two types you have in your tritype and do the same. I see others are doing this more lately. If anyone is interested in my reason you can read it here:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1262990

Given that I've not been on the forum long, this post clarifies a number of things. Thanks for that.

I don't think I'm naïve enough to fall for his tricks; I have every reason to be skeptical but few reasons to completely denounce his typing. Brushing his opinion off as statistical error was unreasonable since the necessary conditions for such an action would be that his means of typing are either imprecise or inaccurate. Given that he uses the same means of typing for every individual and that means is subjective, I have no method to conclude that his means are imprecise. And given that I didn't have a thorough set of examples that are clearly mistyped by him, I couldn't conclude that his means are inaccurate. That's precisely why I wanted to wait for him to justify his typing, and why I'm still not going to give up on getting answers. However, now that you've provided me some examples and reasons to doubt his typings, I can be more confident that his opinion doesn't matter or at least should not be taken seriously. To me, it's less about "seeking an authority" and more about making sure that I'm being reasonable with the information that I have. Overusing/misusing information is a huge problem some people have, and I refuse to engage in it unless it yields a useful approximation to solve a problem whose answer is already known or unless it provides some insightful intuition that should be taken as a rough analogy rather than precisely.

I'm very aware that he's trying to be more authoritative than he actually is. I laughed when he called himself an expert since I've been browsing typology forums a while and whenever people say that they're almost certainly not. I haven't read enough of his posts to determine his enneatype yet, but you're correct in saying that a number of 3s want to see themselves as 8s. The same goes for cp 6s. I'm much more confident in my ability to type enneagram in comparison to socionics since I've done it a lot longer and have been reasonably consistent with commonly accepted typings. That's partially why I opened up my enneagram typing. It's a challenge, in a way since his use of VI in enneagram is not nearly as accepted as it is in socionics.

Reading that type 3 description, I can relate to some aspects in my core but not others. For example, I strongly relate to the paragraph on independence, but I don't care to be admired beyond the superficial. It is my goal to be a "superior being" in the sense that I want to minimize my weaknesses while realizing my strengths. However, to perceive yourself as god-like or even strive to be so is foolish. We are all mortal humans with a limited capability, and finding that capability and flourishing within it is what leads to success - at least it has been like that in my existence. I see myself as competitive, but I pride myself on not being stupid with that sense of competition. It's about knowing your weaknesses and having the foresight to realize potential negative outcomes. I hate it when people compete for the sake of not losing. There's usually no purpose, and it comes across as false bravery (and I mentioned how much I despise that in my video). I'm also not nearly as self-confident as that post suggests 3s are. My view on the future is largely negative, and so I strive to embetter myself so as to minimize that perception. For example, as I said in my video, I'm an ambitious person. However, since I lack self-confidence, I always feel as though I'll never have the capabilities to reach those ambitions. I therefore spend copious amounts of time and effort learning and solving problems to develop my strengths so that I have enough confidence in the future to at least engage in the outside world long enough to try to see-out my goals. This is a reason why I typed myself 5 since it sounds quite like the 5->8 growth line. The reason I type myself as 3 fix is because these motivations and coping strategies are there, but they are not nearly as present as the 5s coping strategies are. I have found tritype more useful than useless when used correctly (at least for the time being), and so I'll continue to use it until that (perhaps inevitably) changes.

The rest of your post provides me a lot of useful information. Personally, I don't care if he puts me as ESE on his list since anyone with a brain would be able to judge that that typing makes no sense. Since he hasn't responded, I'll probably pm him sometime today or tomorrow a few times. I may taunt him since 8s don't back down from challenges and 3s see themselves as better than a newbie pleb who projects an intellectual stereotype, lol. I also like messing with people and pushing their buttons - it provides me quite a bit of enjoyment.

Thanks again.

EDIT: I should add that if I do happen to be ESE, then that's honestly more power to me. Genuine intellectual drive coupled with the social skills of an ESE = unstoppable. I'm so great!!! /s

[FarDraft]

@Aylen I'm curious to know what you think of my type. I saw that you marked two LII posts constructive, so I assume you think I'm LII, though I could be wrong. If you have anything to add to what's already been said, I'd like to hear it, if possible. Enneagram too, if you can, though I'm relatively set within that system, so it's unlikely I'll change my core type unless a very strong argument is provided.

[Aylen]

@Aylen I'm curious to know what you think of my type. I saw that you marked two LII posts constructive, so I assume you think I'm LII, though I could be wrong. If you have anything to add to what's already been said, I'd like to hear it, if possible. Enneagram too, if you can, though I'm relatively set within that system, so it's unlikely I'll change my core type unless a very strong argument is provided.

I can say I am not clear on your socionics type yet. I just thought it was a good idea to pay attention to those posts on Ti. Enneagram is a deeply personal system of understanding your own behaviors, fears and motivations. It is meant to bring self and also other awareness. I don't really like to comment on E type. I will do it when I feel there is good reason to or I can discuss the system with someone to help them discover their type. You seem to be sure of your's so if the information for type 5 is the most helpful for you that is what matters. I will come back to this when I know what I want to say about it. I may pm instead.

[FarDraft]

I can say I am not clear on your socionics type yet. I just thought it was a good idea to pay attention to those posts on Ti. Enneagram is a deeply personal system of understanding your own behaviors, fears and motivations. It is meant to bring self and also other awareness. I don't really like to comment on E type. I will do it when I feel there is good reason to or I can discuss the system with someone to help them discover their type. You seem to be sure of your's so if the information for type 5 is the most helpful for you that is what matters. I will come back to this when I know what I want to say about it. I may pm instead.

That's reasonable. The Ti typing is something I considered before but am now considering more seriously given that people see it so commonly used within my writing and speaking style.
My methods for typing enneagram are similar yet slightly different. I tend to narrow down types more readily since some are very unlikely when presented with information about core values, beliefs, fears, motivations, etc. It is a much more personal system than socionics, so I tend to be even less firm with it (in comparison to socionics, which I'm not really firm with yet) and only provide suggestions.
Feel free to pm. I've removed the video because the vast majority of comments and information have already been posted. If you need it for further information, then I can pm it. Let me know.

[FarDraft]

Thanks to everyone who has provided thoughts on my type. Here are the conclusions I've drawn from your responses. Many are shallow but informative.

• VI-wise, ILI fits better than LII, though the structured nature of my stature indicates Ij > Ip.
• Ti is very noticeable within my speech and writing.
• Holistically, most judgments were made regarding temperament with Ij being the clear victor over Ip.

The picture of an ILI is beginning to become more clear to me - and I see myself less and less like one. A planned person with foresight who deliberately makes sure his actions are not impulsive fits more in line with LII than ILI, and that's what thoroughly resonates with me. However, the main hole with an LII typing is that, quadra-wise, gamma fits better than alpha since my goals and interests are related to valued Te and Se. I'd like to brush this off by saying that I have a strong 3 fix (possibly 3 core type, though I can't relate to the core fears and motivations nearly enough), though I'd have to look into that more closely.

Moreover, I'm still not certain of Ti being valued despite my abundant use of it. Logical consistency and structure is something I use as a tool mostly to solve a problem. If there is a more pragmatic solution, I will almost always choose it over the one I would have chosen "on principle" since I don't see the use of abiding by principles that don't make my life easier. For example, abiding by strict mathematical formalism in physics is completely unnecessary and I think that people who do that are wasting their time since mathematics in physics is but a tool to solve a problem rather than an end in and of itself. The reason why I'm so strict with logic and structure within socionics is because it isn't a very empirical theory (it's not falsifiable in its current state) and so to treat it without such precision would inevitably lead to incorrect conclusions or at least a system that is inconsistent - and an axiomatic system that is inconsistent is completely useless since it can prove literally anything.

It's a matter of distinguishing cognition from behaviour for me. I'm a very planned (rather than impulsive) person who is organized and logical, but I'm also a hard core pragmatist that just wants to get the job done with minimal energy expended. (I'm also not an LSI despite that type holding the title of "pragmatist"). I have no problem with adapting myself or my plans according to the information available or my environment yet I still prefer to think ahead and have some potential solutions in anticipation. It's basically a repeat of the issue I had in MBTI where I was considering INTP due to my systematic and logical nature and INTJ due to my inclination towards foresight, planning, and structure, but it's made more difficult since socionics is more nuanced and both types have the same strong functions rather than INTPs just not using Ni and INTJs Ti.

It's a contradictory situation that I think can only be solved by constant observation of intertype relations. And so that's what I'll do. I'll therefore not type myself for a good while.

Thanks again.

EDIT: On reflection, it seems like my use of the word impulsive is not what others have in mind. I'll have to take that into consideration.

EDIT 2: On second reflection, I think I really need to hone in on my relationship with planning and structure. Comparing myself to my LSI friends is yielding a number of interesting facts.