What made you type yourself the way you type yourself? Was it a slow process to identify your type or did you have a sudden revelation?
What made you type yourself the way you type yourself? Was it a slow process to identify your type or did you have a sudden revelation?
I read all the element descriptions and took tests and started with a bias of being inf/j in mbti and Fi struck the most resounding bells. I ended up as EII but the (probably bullshit) characterization of them as boring weaklings really bugged me and I devoted myself on the forum to battling that (my life has been about overcoming things? Not to brag?), and spending time with Ni egos made me think maybe mine was weak and I could get something externally from people with it as an ego element so switched to ESI. Being a mistrustful bitch or a moralist harpy are things I've actually been accused of irl even if I don't really identify that way, and I would be dissatisfied as a housewife, so that's a stereotype I don't like, but I'd make a good one, lol.
I found my way here after doing an online MBTI test and immediately assumed that INTJ = LII. When I realized conversion wasn't that simple, I tried out the EII glove but couldn't make it fit. Then somebody typed me SEI and because I was foolish enough to believe there was consensus here on the basic theory (haha) and because I thought that I was missing something (it seemed so complicated) I went through each type again in a process of elimination and landed up back at LII.
My knowledge of actual functions was poor, but I already had myself as "ISFP" just by common sense and comparison with other people. Then I had strong experiences of ITR particularly supervision from LSE and quasi from ESI, identity from SEI and also duality from ILE. From then on it was just about learning more and getting a clearer picture.
The thing that blew my mind the most was that I realized I had actually experienced supervision from LSE many times before Socionics, I knew exactly what it felt like but discovering it again as a part of this system was incredible.
EDIT: My real type struggle happened back in my MBTI days. I wanted to type myself as an intuitive at first, then I wasn't sure, and I got obsessed. I examined all types and thought about people I knew and concluded that ISFP fits me best if I'm honest. Funny thing is that it wasn't until Socionics with all the additional facts and ITR that I could really know that types are real and be absolutely sure. But I had typed myself correctly back then and I am proud of it. It must have been INTUITION.
Last edited by Tallmo; 07-25-2019 at 05:25 PM.
A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
(Jung on Si)
I read DCNH and then it all made sense. As for Enneagram type, I got a lot of help from knowledgeable friends. It was a very slow process, typed as LII/EII for quite some time.
I don't even know, to be perfectly honest. But hello.
The only things I'm sure about are my instinctual stack (so/sx) and tritype (479, order unknown). Everything else is wobbly.
"Lecteur, as-tu quelquefois respiré
Avec ivresse et lente gourmandise
Ce grain d'encens qui remplit une église,
Ou d'un sachet le musc invétéré?
Charme profond, magique, dont nous grise
Dans le présent le passé restauré!
Ainsi l'amant sur un corps adoré
Du souvenir cueille la fleur exquise"
I first discussed it with someone IRL, who suggested IEE and which seemed satisfactory at first, and after reading the basics of Jung and socionics (function elements, type descriptions, intertypes, cog styles, reinin dichotomies, etc etc), although quite a few characteristics were off, i decided that IEE was an ok (if not perfect) point of reference. When i first joined this forum many, many years ago i did notice more discrepancies with IEEs on here, but i simply didn't have the time to thoroughly examine why that was, so i left it at that even as i kept on reading more material that surfaced on here. Following a few major life changes i reconsidered type and, while certain on Fi, i wavered between ESI and EII. I think the ITR work best with my current self-typing of EII, as do a number of other things such as why IRL i get along better with rationals, etc etc.
I think my typing doubts were reasonable when I compare what I now know myself to be with what I've previously considered > ILI (mirror), EIE (look a like), and ILE (quasi-identical); I never veered too far away from the truth. The major breakthrough for me was twofold >
1.) Learning that Gammas and Deltas readily access and prefer different empathy channels (perspective taking/cognitive empathy/Fi) than those of Alphas and Betas (vicarious experience/affective empathy/Fe); that made it easier for me to definitively rule out ILE and EIE.
2.) Discovering VI (particularly based on Filatova), which as far as I'm concerned is the ultimate game changer. The fact that type can be discerned by way of phenotype/mannerisms is...nigh miraculous and totally justifies/validates the very idea of "type." And it was done according to an empirical method > testing and typing thousands of people with such a high degree of accuracy that readily observable patterns manifested. DaveSuperPowers and a few other typing systems have also noted these patterns, and guess what? They almost uniformly conform to Filatova's results. And of course it's not 100% neat and tidy, considering the breadth of human phenotypical diversity, but over the years, I've created my own VI database built upon Filatova's work and I've yet to be wrong when typing someone by this metric, including myself. I don't VI like ILIs, EIEs, or ILEs and so with certainty, I know that I am LIE.
knowledge and practice have shown the type which stably fits to the classical theory significantly better than other types
unlike many ones, besides types traits I also I used IR theory to understand own type. it's hard to be misleaded by this way
after I've become sure in my type years ago, I never had basis to doubt in it. I gеt confirmations to the type and to the theory in its core
I started off by converting my typings from MBTI (INTJ -> LII). At some point I re-evaluated them more deeply and changed some but not my self-typing. I never really had any doubts about being LII, or say being something like ILI instead. The values, the strengths, dimensionality, everything basically fits as it should.
Read part of a Stratv profile and decided I was that one.
I took MBTI test and got INTJ just like everyone does. I then thought about INTP and cruised INTP forums for a couple of months. It felt at home, but something wasn't quite right. I looked through all the introverted types and felt like if I were being honest with myself ISFP was best fit. Then someone on the forums had talked about Socionics, then I came here and met some people in the chatrooms. They VIed me as SEI, and then I just stuck with that ever since. It seems right.
With Enneagram I thought I might be a 4 at first, until I met a friend from the forum in person and she said I must be E6. I read up more about enneagram, and 648 sounds right for my tritype.
Cuz generally growing up I fit the description of 'romantic' pretty well, I would often be criticized for being too daydreamy and I would also be really intently drawn to love stories on TV, like I was almost weirdly obsessed with them... this teacher I had would snap at me harshly to 'stop daydreaming!' cuz I would often just gaze out the window and dream lol. I can't get too mad at her tho, cuz she also stood up to my bullies. I think she was just some overly realistic harsh LSI type probably. Or possibly ESI.
I also drew the interests and attention of SLE Bad boy Chads a lot.... but when I first got into typology I typed as EII. I think its kinda the default 'shy introverted dork' type. Like ppl generically type as that often... but ... I think real EIIs just care a lot about morality than I do. And they seem way more republican & conservative than I do. Not as romantic. More realistic. And their sense of humor seems much more serious & dry. I can pretend to be politically correct if its in my best interest, but I value being rebellious and crazy more.
Back then got SLE in test etc...I switched from SLE to LSI when I realised SLEs are more open to alternative explanations on stuff than me. That was the first reason ever that I was able to really take in for switching... even though the LSI option did come up before that a lot too. Then when I switched was a special experience, it was weird but it just added to the reasons for this typing. It did help me see myself better, for sure it was good for that for a while even if the theory is meh.
And yeah people can see personality traits in faces according to scientific studies too.
But I'm less concerned with trying to elevate Socionics, specifically, in so much as I want to "connect it all" and complete the puzzle because I think there's definitely some there, there.
So it doesn't give me new connections that are actually any good or can be put to any use/prediction/etc that are not offered by other frameworks. Or help complete that puzzle and whatever.
And it was freeing for my thinking/logic when I finally found every single thing or idea elsewhere in a better form / in a better context or understanding/framework etc. While removing any erroneous connections, too.
I think it was even more freeing for the connections/associations-making aspirations/strivings of mine. I won't call it Ni or Ne, or even Intuition (tho that concept is less bad), it's just what it is, and yeah. Truly freeing for it.
(PS anyone - just to provide a couple of *examples*, I make this offer; feel free to bring up stuff that you think Socionics explains better than anything else and I'll see if I can give an alternative, better, non-socionics explanation. : p Or even if not necessarily proven to be better, an alternative anyway that doesn't require all the bogus Socionics model for it... or at least, I can try and poke holes into the Socionics reasoning and at least point the way toward a possible alternative.)
I have always been outlier of the living world.
Logic is more like fun past time that I like to do via math and science but living through a settled system is not something I prefer. I also like more active ways of solving things. Juggling through fuzzy categories and finding plausible outcomes makes LII's drop their jaw. Things like grammatical relations in a sentence are not interest of mine as it makes sound like it kills the expressive value (maybe that grammar relation stuff has huge hint of Fi). Programming (which is mainly Ni and Ti as backup) as in writing down a system and not problem solving tends to kill me inside.
Measuring you right now
Winning is for losers
It was slow process. I first found MBTi and typed infp/infp but I was kinda skeptical about the system then I found Socionics and got EII, after some time I was reading about quasi identity and it was accurate 100% I was surprised so IEE came to mind. I wasnt sure of it but after reading and interacting with ppl from different types everything fit perfectly. I before was kinda unhealthy which stopped me from seeing myself clearly and EII seemed plausible at that time because I kinda related to their struggles. But after I got better, I realized that those struggles anyone with low self-esteem can experience them and it is not type related.
I did around 20 online tests and I always got the same result. then I read the DCNH articles and it was very obvious for me which subtype I had. I think LII are probably rarely unsure about their type.
I did about 15 MBTI tests and 5 socionics test.
I got either INTP or ENTP as result in most MBTI test and ILE as result in the Socionics, but there were tests I scored INTJ, INFP or ENFP – but that tests were more simplistic ones.
My brother told me the basics of socionics and the types. I pointed out, "I'm that one." Because it's the one that fit me.
I've said that typing someone has more to do with knowing the person than knowing the theory.
The most important to type correctly is to understand the theory correctly and how it's represented in practice. This needs experience in typing and watching people. Also you should not use wrong theory which has more chance to be among theory far Jung's basics and clear reasons. Also your exprience should be based on correct examples to do not copy mistakes.
There is no need to know much about a human to type him correctly. When you get assured type - it mb correct with good possibility. VI helps in this, - it uses nonverbal which is often seen enough for assured type during minutes of random communications. Without VI would be significantly harder to type correctly those who you do not know close by their common behavior. Also tests are useful to type anyone. And taking into account IR effects with you, when you know your correct type.
Try to study VI by my examples. After a time when your skills will be good, you'll notice that types you've felt in people then fit good to their behavior by the theory. You'll can type good people which you do not know good.
I made a post in the Random Thought thread that I'll copy here:
I'm ever unsure of my own typing, while I'm often quite sure of others'. I'm 100% sure, for instance, that one of my roommates is LII. I constantly compare his expressions and actions to mine, trying to find similarities or obvious differences. I think I'm more expressive than he is, and perhaps slightly more outgoing. He seems to come off dry and stiffly to others; I think I probably come across as awkward and dull. We both have a tendency to forget or not notice what might seem like obvious and important, in similar ways.
My main problem with typing myself LII is that I'm constantly aware of acting 'emotionally' or irrationally. I joined an honors society because I wanted to make friends; I spend my own money to buy food and clothes for my girlfriend's little siblings because I feel it's the right thing to do; I try to talk to passerby and strangers because I feel it's important to be friendly; I chose a major with terrible job prospects because I felt it was better to study something interesting than something monetarily profitable. This sort of awareness is running through my head constantly -- even in the smallest of actions, I feel I'm always aware that I make them based on emotions and ethical considerations rather than some 'objective' reason (to the extent any person can). And (I'm not sure how to word this without coming across badly -- I apologize) I do feel I have a stricter ethical code than most people, and more consciously feel a sense of wrong at perceived injustice to others.
I'm not sure what other typing could fit though. I'm shit with Fe, so Alpha and Beta Fe egos are out. I'm pretty much 100% sure I'm not an Se ego, so that rules out Betas and half the Gammas. As to whether I could be a Gamma NT...maybe? They are similar in some respects, but putting aside type descriptions, I don't relate much to descriptions of Ni, and I think I'm better with Ti than Te. That leaves the Deltas -- I tend to like them as a quadra, but I relate more to the NFs than the STs -- the latter seem, in a way, inflexible and rigid in a way that I'm not, while the attitudes of EIIs and IEEs seems more similar to mine. IEE is out though -- I'm not at all like them in other ways, and I think, as a rule, they're pretty irritating. EII is the closest, and I could see Ti role for myself. But this typing also seems wrong -- EIIs have a sort of confidence, at least in the realm of Fi, which I admire but lack. This is difficult to explain, but I feel EIIs actually feel emotions very strongly, where with me they're more of an inclining force, and not something so visceral. They might storm someone they felt was acting badly, and loudly and (if mature) confidently confront them with ethical considerations; I'd be more disinclined to act unless perhaps other people were being hurt, and even then I'd be much more cautious.
In the end, I stick with LII by a process of elimination. If someone thinks I seem like another type they're always welcome to say so (and also if they particularly agree with my self-typing). One other piece of evidence in favor of LII though, I think, is Stratiyevskaya's LII type description, which seems generally accurate -- particularly her emphasis on the drive for 'fairness' and justice.
1. Ti PoLR has to be the most irritating function in the Socion. They often seem genuinely incapable of understanding any kind of nuance or basic analysis in a general sense, but at the same time they're usually quick to form opinions and gleefully pronounce them as gospel without seemingly understanding they have no idea what they're talking about. Also, this is petty, but what's up with IEEs and wearing gaudy clothing?
If DJA was right about anything, then I'm fi >fe cause I'd rather "love myself" than fight for the love of others. I live in my own cosmos and never changed for everyone. It's not even like a conscious choice thing either, my day-to-day heuristics just aren't networked into the social aether like most people's and it comes off as a lot more clumsy than just self-centered.
And I tend to be a lot more ad-hoc in outward action, but more structured internally. So that would mean Static... and I really don't get Dynamics, especially Dynamic Rationals, ugh.
Actually I've heard ti suggested for me and I see how it could make sense in some contexts, but me valuing fe > fi just doesn't.
That is more aligned with ESI than EII. Hence it makes sense that ESI is your super ego type being on the same side of right/left division. EII's are usually very self blaming people.I do feel I have a stricter ethical code than most people, and more consciously feel a sense of wrong at perceived injustice to others.
Identify pretty much similarly as SEE of having qualities that aims to push through obstacles.
Measuring you right now
Winning is for losers
Also about the gaudy clothing, I usually wear clothing which may not look incredible but is incredibly comfy and those tend to be neutral colored.
Well, I had been typed first as IEE and secondly as ILE on the same Socionics questionnaire which I took twice and, at the time I knew nothing about theory nor would I be interested until a few years later (now). For a while recently I had been seeking to confirm my type and while IEE isn't a perfect fit, it fits as close as possible in my opinion. It's worth noting that I am incapable of barfing out the long winded somewhat needlessly complex paragraphs about topics that could be summed up in fewer words which I find to be characteristic of Ti egos.
I couldn't decide between LII and ILI for quite a long time. I used Talanov's statistics to settle the matter. But to be honest I'm not sure I could belong to either type more than the other.
I’m a moralist. I make judgements
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions: