FULL 40Q. Please help type me. TIA

[Disturbed]

LSI-Se or LII-Ti. Some LSI-Se are pretty non-forceful people, but they also enjoy or are open to having "a good time" with friends, in a loud environment, drinking, listening to and making crude/gross jokes and group activities whether fun/leisure or work (all much more than the LII-Ti). Also, the LSI-Se loves puns more than the LII-Ti.

[redundantoxymoron]

Was it really? Did they give their reasoning? Would like to read it if so...

Heh. Yes, the reasoning was that because I know how to press, I have strong Se, and because I have an understanding of ergonomics rules, I have strong Si. But I think the pressing is still more Ti than Se (although I do think it's decently Se), and the ergonomics *rules* are primarily Ti and only indicate Si-valuing if anything.

could it be you are so terrible at estimating pressure placed on you that you cannot even tell?

It's possible, but this kind of argument undermines the entire notion of self-typing (that one can type oneself or participate in typing oneself). The typing process inherently assumes one's self-perception is at least roughly accurate. With that in mind, I can say that, no, I am not so terrible at estimating pressure placed on me that I can't even tell- I can tell just fine.

What PoLR do you see for yourself, then?

Good question. Generally, I don't relate to any of the IEs in the PoLR position, except some descriptions of Si PoLR and Fi PoLR. Occasionally, I do relate to Se PoLR and Fe PoLR, but rarely.

[remiges]

It's possible, but this kind of argument undermines the entire notion of self-typing (that one can type oneself or participate in typing oneself). The typing process inherently assumes one's self-perception is at least roughly accurate. With that in mind, I can say that, no, I am not so terrible at estimating pressure placed on me that I can't even tell- I can tell just fine.

Good question. Generally, I don't relate to any of the IEs in the PoLR position, except some descriptions of Si PoLR and Fi PoLR. Occasionally, I do relate to Se PoLR and Fe PoLR, but rarely.

Seems to me it would be difficult to self type because you’re blind to your own base... have to look at what isn’t there as you may never see what actually is constant. That you may actually see your demonstrative or creative more clearly.

So given that... Perhaps you should look into ILE-Ti or SLI-Te if you’re sure you are Si valuing. Given that this questionnaire seems bent to NT (in a general sense) I would also throw ILI up there.

Ajna also makes a good point but I would be cautious with comparing yourself to others with same type as they could be mistyped themselves or have vastly different life experiences (the usual).

I am also on mobile, sorry the message is short.

[redundantoxymoron]

You're describing the literal objective and universal definition of things that are being asked, but we want to read what those things are or mean to you.

Actually, every definition provided here is my own. Same with my classification systems. I didn't reference any external definitions. For instance, let's look at the Te block - the very first question, in fact. I defined work without reference to any external facts: "Work is the exchange of time for money or the expectation of future money." And then I specifically explained why it differs from the common, external view of work: "People sometimes view unpaid but demanding activities as work, e.g. side projects outside of work, raising children, serious hobbies, etc. but I would not classify these as work because you are not exchanging time for money or the expectation of future money."

If we wanted to know the literal meaning we would just Google the definition.

Maybe you should google the definition then. If you did, you'd see that it's different from my definition. So, I did not use the "literal meaning".

Originally, I'd intended to go through your post point-by-point, since there are many false assumptions, but then I noticed these premises:

I think you have very strong Si, Fe, and Thinking.

i.e. very strong Fe and also very strong Thinking

I said in the other post that while superficially going through your posts you seemed like an Ne user, but I think your Si is way more developed.

i.e. Si > Ne dimensionality

Followed by this conclusion:

Please look into SLI, ILI and LIE

And I decided that your Socionics knowledge is too poor to be worth a point-by-point analysis.

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. You think I have very strong Fe and also very strong Thinking, which is not possible within the theory; if Fe is 3D, then both logic functions must be 2D or lower. You also think I have strong Si and Si > Ne dimensionality, but you suggested LIE, a type with 4D Ne demonstrative and 1D Si PoLR. You also think I have strong Fe, but you suggested two types (SLI and ILI) that have 1D Fe PoLR.

All of the above should have thrown up red flags in your mind that you misinterpreted *something* in your analysis.

I don't know if I'm LII or ILE

Since you helped me, let me return the favor. Tbh, I'd expect a Ti ego - even a Ti creative - to detect logical contradictions, and explain or resolve them, before posting.

I understand you're just throwing out possibilities - but a Ti ego would acknowledge the contradictions, while you didn't.

And tbh, I'd also expect a Ti ego to detect the logical contradiction between typing oneself as a Ti ego and not being able to (easily) detect logical contradictions.

[redundantoxymoron]

Seems to me it would be difficult to self type because you’re blind to your own base... have to look at what isn’t there as you may never see what actually is constant. That you may actually see your demonstrative or creative more clearly.

So given that... Perhaps you should look into ILE-Ti or SLI-Te if you’re sure you are Si valuing. Given that this questionnaire seems bent to NT (in a general sense) I would also throw ILI up there.

Ti is the only function of which I'm regularly consciously aware; I'm also sometimes aware of Fe.

I find it interesting that you didn't suggest SLE-Ti? With SLI-Te, I'd need to explain both an unconscious base function and an unconscious creative function. With ILI-Te, same.

[remiges]

Ti is the only function of which I'm regularly consciously aware; I'm also sometimes aware of Fe.

I find it interesting that you didn't suggest SLE-Ti? With SLI-Te, I'd need to explain both an unconscious base function and an unconscious creative function. With ILI-Te, same.

You had already previously said you did not believe you were SLE, as it was recommended by whatever society, so I did not see the need to mention it. I am presently leaning toward ILE-Ti, rather than the others, but I would need more time to actually process it further. Apologies.

However... I am interested in asking another question. Would you say you just like considering ideas for the sake of considering them, without really ever needing to come to a conclusion?

Edit: Never mind. Neato. SEI then.

[redundantoxymoron]

You had already previously said you did not believe you were SLE, as it was recommended by whatever society, so I did not see the need to mention it. I am presently leaning toward ILE-Ti, rather than the others, but I would need more time to actually process it further. Apologies.

However... I am interested in asking another question. Would you say you just like considering ideas for the sake of considering them, without really ever needing to come to a conclusion?

Edit: Never mind. Neato. SEI then.

Thanks, I don't mind still discussing btw.

re SLE-Ti: I forgot I'd mentioned the previous SLE typing; I understand now why you didn't mention it.

Yes, I did think it was notable what you pointed out earlier: "Also, bringing up a possibility -> evaluating it for logical consistency -> another possibility -> evaluating it for logical consistency, Ti-Ne, iteration, is a common theme throughout this whole questionnaire."

And as I replied earlier, the iteration "should" be inverted for an LII: state a logical rule/principle -> bring up possibilities about it -> state another logical rule/principle -> bring up possibilities about it.

But on reflection, I do your version much more than mine. This suggests I'm coming up with possibilities (Ne) first, then checking them for logical consistency (Ti).

As for your question, it depends on the context. I usually, but not always, like to fit ideas into theories or with other ideas, and not just consider them for their own sake. But, I don't mind that either.

[remiges]

Thanks, I don't mind still discussing btw.

re SLE-Ti: I forgot I'd mentioned the previous SLE typing; I understand now why you didn't mention it.

Yes, I did think it was notable what you pointed out earlier: "Also, bringing up a possibility -> evaluating it for logical consistency -> another possibility -> evaluating it for logical consistency, Ti-Ne, iteration, is a common theme throughout this whole questionnaire."

And as I replied earlier, the iteration "should" be inverted for an LII: state a logical rule/principle -> bring up possibilities about it -> state another logical rule/principle -> bring up possibilities about it.

But on reflection, I do your version much more than mine. This suggests I'm coming up with possibilities (Ne) first, then checking them for logical consistency (Ti).

As for your question, it depends on the context. I usually, but not always, like to fit ideas into theories or with other ideas, and not just consider them for their own sake. But, I don't mind that either.

Yeah, the order was incorrect, I see what you mean. I got a bit sloppy there, but the general idea still stands.

What I meant for their own sake, was that you can just consider them in and of themselves without ultimately needing to take some kind of concrete action, unlike how I imagine an SLE would. Thoughts? I may be getting dangerously close to sloppy again, lol sorry.