Short typing video

[grumpyvic81]

As duals you should find significant similarity of life views. For example, you both (1,2) did personal insults against me after geting my opinion about your types. To get info about types on forums made to give such info is a too stressful situation for you. I understand. Not good for your objectiviy, but should fit to your High Ideals.

You don't seem to realise that you have a role too in every interaction. It takes two to tango. When everyone reacts the same to you then the commonality is in your behaviour/attitude.

@Beautiful sky
@Northstar

just watch videos of each other. or better video-link alike skype. try to talk
you should notice irrational mutual sympathy

this would be the argument about your good IR and my opinion about your types

I recommend you to try this experiment
Not so many people are your duals with which you may talk significantly. To watch how those behave. To understand how they think.
Also many of which you'll think as duals will not be so, due to ~50% average accuracy, where noobs and heretics should to have some lesser

though, negative non-types factors may be lesser usual for you both. but you may try, anyway. to become good friends is not obligate

The most mechanical way of "relationship-building" that I've ever seen.

[Sol]

@Northstar
for possible T type you are using unusually much of the word "fuck" in a typing theme

[grumpyvic81]

Northstar if you don't mind me adding some comments, this is to show how I was reasoning before about the LSI typings (yours and mine as well).

This was useful for me too, and exactly what I mean with the straightforwardness I enjoy. And yes, I often don't even realize that I hurt someone with a remark until after they show a visceral reaction to it, and then judge me for my inability to consider their feelings. It just doesn't register to me in advance if I'm not being extremely careful and calculating about what I say. That gets exhausting quickly and isn't a stable indicator of whether I care about the person or not.

&

SEE seem straightforward to me in a good way. This is again an example of how I feel about Fi, I either don't give a shit about feelings at all, or if I do like someone then I'm afraid of accidentally saying something that will offend them when that wasn't my intention.

&

I don't want to restrict my blunt output to avoid hurting someone's feelings.

Bolded: I thought that's the Fi role, because it's not like completely ignoring the stuff. And for the last quote, I read that Ti leads have this issue of not wanting to restrict their blunt opinions. Which again indicates some basic awareness of Fi.

Though all this (incl socionics articles using reasoning like the above, apparently) also kinda assumes that xLEs are truly assholes and psychopaths if they have even less awareness than that. : p

A typical problem with a Fi user that I've had is that I say something off-handedly or as a joke that wasn't meant to be a personal attack, but they take it as such and get wound up. Then I say that I didn't mean it that way and it was just a joke, but their response is along the lines of "You don't get to decide how it comes across to me. You hurt me, now I have the right to be angry at you". This is just something I can't deal with in close relationships, it's like walking in a minefield and I set them off constantly. I can just ignore such insults/attacks and especially if they clarify that it wasn't meant that way then it will be fine by me and doesn't need to be dissected further.

Oh yeah I once tried to put in the effort and understand an INFx person. She said basically the same thing... if she gets hurt then she stops trusting the other person and they have to prove themselves to her before she will hear them out on the clarification that it wasn't meant that way. A ridiculous catch-22. I proceeded to inform them too of this, of course. She kept going on about "how things come off is very important". She didn't care about any kind of basic "logical analysis" of things, she'd like, ignore really common sense things with that. Yes possible she was EII, yeah, I never decided but the above was just too ridiculous and I didn't really see Fe creative either ....

If someone says or does something that hurts me and I'm close to that person, it feels like a personal attack to me because to my understanding they should have known beforehand those words/actions would hurt me. Fi polr is clearer to me now, definitely.

Heh all Logical types are going to make mistakes in that area, so when it feels like a personal attack to you with the expectation that they should "read your mind", it can be useful to consider this difference, yeah.

I like unambiguous displays of positive emotion, optimistic can-do attitude and enthusiasm, preferably accompanied by actually doing something about it. That makes me feel good. People getting angry and ranting often initially amuse me instead of infecting me with it, I can't take excessive negativity seriously and don't engage in it much. I don't like complaining and negativity in general though, habitual critics and whiners annoy me and make me want to kick them out of the company for ruining the mood. They can shut up if they don't have anything positive to say.

Yeah, the problem in my relationships tends to be that I automatically distrust anyone liking me and every little signal is interpreted in the worst possible way. I need someone that constantly reassures me of their good feelings and is kind, otherwise my interpretation of our relationship very fast goes downhill.
I couldn't understand why someone could claim that they loved me when to me it didn't seem like that at all, due to them not showing it constantly like others before had done. After getting into Socionics I learned that the difference here was between Fi creative (I don't get it) and Fe creative (I like it a lot). I did have a short relationship with a Fe lead (ESE) but ended it because I got tired of the mood swings, bossiness and lack of respect.

As for the bolded, that is what I meant by actions matching words in relationships. Hope that's clarified.

As for your low tolerance of negative emotions, it's stereotypically supposed to be Fe dual seeking (according to articles) but who knows. Where it would be Fe dual seeking is what you yourself quoted earlier about LSI vs SLE, where LSI was described as having low tolerance for negativity.

The part about someone claiming they love you, yeah that is familiar.

Did the SEI and the IEE constantly reassure you of their positive emotions towards you?

My experience with ESEs is that they can be bitchy but they come off surprisingly even with moods compared to beta NF/EIE. I have found SEEs would display mood swings and bossiness though. ESEs are more just emotionally bitchy and it's easy to put them in their place. But I haven't tried to be in a very close relationship with any ESE, idk if I'd have tolerance for the bitchy stuff that long. LIIs are probably more patient lol, I assume the extra bitchy stuff has strength in expression bc of Se demo or something. But I would hardly call that bossy, it's SEEs who try to play bossy when they get in that mood. Also SEE in bad mood is going to be really really disrespectful lol. ESE is just... bitchy and emotional (but without the extra mood swings). In my experience. (LIIs also don't tolerate bossiness, i.e. it's disliked to an extreme degree, so it would make sense that way)


Also... if you don't mind, this came off really strange without context: "Someone addressing me by name typically smells like an attempt at manipulation and makes me uncomfortable and suspicious."

Like, what do you mean. A family member or a buddy addressing you by name feels manipulative?

[grumpyvic81]

@Northstar
for possible T type you are using unusually much of the word "fuck" in a typing theme

You can't be serious typing by that. Just because you don't swear, it doesn't mean no T types can ever swear.

[Northstar]

@Northstar
for possible T type you are using unusually much of the word "fuck" in a typing theme

Well, fuck me, maybe I'm a fucking F type then. F that.

There goes my T type. Press F to pay respects to it.

[Northstar]

Did the SEI and the IEE constantly reassure you of their positive emotions towards you?

Like, what do you mean. A family member or a buddy addressing you by name feels manipulative?

SEI did, IEE didn't. That was the big reason why I got along so much better with Fe creative than Fi creative in a close relationship.

I mean the kind of thing when someone deliberately uses it in a conversation when it's clearly not needed to address you in a crowd or call you over. When it's used to "remind" you of relationship distance. Feels the same when someone starts to press me to open up about my feelings in detail because they think our relation means they're entitled to hear it.

[Beautiful sky]

Well, fuck me, maybe I'm a fucking F type then. F that.

There goes my T type. Press F to pay respects to it.

Sol types and makes ridiculous rules about who is what depending on what stupid conjecture criteria that is his own theory. Don’t apply it to you

[SGF]

Well, fuck me, maybe I'm a fucking F type then. F that.

There goes my T type. Press F to pay respects to it.

Only if you shoot yourself full of estrogen :/

[Sol]

when more of reason will visit you and you'll make normal typing video - place it to 1st message of the theme and mention me

your type is not SLE
there is no basis behind Gulenko's subtypes
you seem some J and mb LSI

you never read normal sources and think a mess about Jung types. you have no practice to be sure in what you think
you are just a noob which much tends to bark instead of thinking. while when thinks - does this not good

your E-type is doubtful to be 8. you remind shy, dreamy and touchy E9s living in fantasies

with a time mb you'll understand your current mistake
you may harm yourself by mistakes and irrational approach to types which you've copied from inadequate emotional noobs

P.S. I don't live in English colony to know good English language

[Northstar]

when more of reason will visit you and you'll make normal typing video - place it to 1st message of the theme and mention me

your type is not SLE
there is no basis behind Gulenko's subtypes
you seem some J and mb LSI

you never read normal sources and think a mess about Jung types. you have no practice to be sure in what you think
you are just a noob which much tends to bark instead of thinking. while when thinks - does this not good

your E-type is doubtful to be 8. you remind shy, dreamy and touchy E9s living in fantasies

with a time mb you'll understand your current mistake
you may harm yourself by mistakes and irrational approach to types which you've copied from inadequate emotional noobs

P.S. I don't live in English colony to know good English language

Dude, you're the one that is too shy to make a video or show your pics. Just do it, are you introvert or extrovert, what?

This one is pretty clear cut: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...an-Dichotomies
- Extravert
- Sensing
- Logical
- Irrational

You have to try harder with your VI skills, man. Or stop typing out of spite.

I can tell you're still butthurt about the Pulp Fiction quote, LMAO.

[Northstar]

your E-type is doubtful to be 8. you remind shy, dreamy and touchy E9s living in fantasies

Not even your e-type mistypes are common, commie.

Eights with a Nine-wing can sometimes be mistaken for Nines with an Eight-wing, although this is not a common mistype. Eights are openly assertive and do not mind getting into conflicts to make their point. In fact, Eights often like to get into conflicts and debates, finding them energizing and a sign that the other person really cares about the issue. Nines dislike contention of any kind and if possible, would rather agree with the other to keep the peace. As they deteriorate down the Levels, Eights become angrier, more aggressive, and domineering: Nines become more passive, disengaged and depressive.

[Beautiful sky]

when more of reason will visit you and you'll make normal typing video - place it to 1st message of the theme and mention me

your type is not SLE
there is no basis behind Gulenko's subtypes
you seem some J and mb LSI

you never read normal sources and think a mess about Jung types. you have no practice to be sure in what you think
you are just a noob which much tends to bark instead of thinking. while when thinks - does this not good

your E-type is doubtful to be 8. you remind shy, dreamy and touchy E9s living in fantasies

with a time mb you'll understand your current mistake
you may harm yourself by mistakes and irrational approach to types which you've copied from inadequate emotional noobs

P.S. I don't live in English colony to know good English language

Stop it!
He’s SLE
He’s SLE
For God’s sake the Fi pole couldn’t stand out more could it?
OMG sol I mean what on earth!!?????

[Beautiful sky]

PoLR

“I'm uncomfortable about establishing and evaluating the level of relations with other people. It sets off all alarm bells if someone tries to actively befriend me and I usually expect them to have a hidden agenda in that case (what do they want from me, it's time to be careful with this guy). This is more in real life, though, on the Internet the stakes are too low to get too paranoid. I'm often second guessing how people feel about me and can't seem to come to conclusions unless they display it extremely clearly and keep doing it.”

[The Reality Denialist]

So yeah. It is like SLE likes positive assuring emotions while ILE likes anarchistic emotions with sudden shake ups (like that song I gave a link "Love, You're whore") or they both probably like to rest like next to a fireplace watch the world burn while having a cup of cocoa and laughing like maniacs.

[kingslayer]

PoLR

“I'm uncomfortable about establishing and evaluating the level of relations with other people. It sets off all alarm bells if someone tries to actively befriend me and I usually expect them to have a hidden agenda in that case (what do they want from me, it's time to be careful with this guy). This is more in real life, though, on the Internet the stakes are too low to get too paranoid. I'm often second guessing how people feel about me and can't seem to come to conclusions unless they display it extremely clearly and keep doing it.”

I heavily relate to this as well Sky.

@north part of the reason I feel suspicious of these people. Perhaps you can relate too.. i look pretty unapproachable usually and even intimidating to some. So to me it adds "why are you attempting to approach such an unapproachable person?" But I've had friendships start that way too. Some just like to engage everyone im starting to learn with age

[grumpyvic81]

SEI did, IEE didn't. That was the big reason why I got along so much better with Fe creative than Fi creative in a close relationship.

I mean the kind of thing when someone deliberately uses it in a conversation when it's clearly not needed to address you in a crowd or call you over. When it's used to "remind" you of relationship distance. Feels the same when someone starts to press me to open up about my feelings in detail because they think our relation means they're entitled to hear it.

Hm I see, were you ever successfully manipulated in this way in the past? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to try and manipulate anyone by using their name to address them

So you had a closeish relationship with both SEI and ESE ... would you say the SEI or the ESE was better at doing this reassuring you of their emotions in the relationship?

[grumpyvic81]

when more of reason will visit you and you'll make normal typing video - place it to 1st message of the theme and mention me

your type is not SLE
there is no basis behind Gulenko's subtypes
you seem some J and mb LSI

you never read normal sources and think a mess about Jung types. you have no practice to be sure in what you think
you are just a noob which much tends to bark instead of thinking. while when thinks - does this not good

your E-type is doubtful to be 8. you remind shy, dreamy and touchy E9s living in fantasies

with a time mb you'll understand your current mistake
you may harm yourself by mistakes and irrational approach to types which you've copied from inadequate emotional noobs

P.S. I don't live in English colony to know good English language

Dreamy......... LOL

[Beautiful sky]

There’s another layer to the Fi polr

[Northstar]

Hm I see, were you ever successfully manipulated in this way in the past? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to try and manipulate anyone by using their name to address them

So you had a closeish relationship with both SEI and ESE ... would you say the SEI or the ESE was better at doing this reassuring you of their emotions in the relationship?

No, I wasn't manipulated but it feels manipulative.

I was in a relationship for 7 years with SEI, the ESE lasted more like 7 months. SEI was obviously loads better.

[Beautiful sky]

It’s easy to get SLE and LSE mixed up due to a lot of similarities on the Ni polr and Fi polr function’ for example with Ni polr and Ni suggestive BOTH LSE and SLE face uncertainty about the future and with their Fi polr and Fi suggestive both can seem weak at relationships. Making them so much alike to the deceptive conflict relationship.

However this is Fi polr’s other side

“Fi – Vulnerable function. When any situations deals with the ability to “catch” moods in others, the tones of attitudes, which present themselves in people, amongst each other, and towards SLE, SLE suffers an internal feeling of nervousness. They are apt to understand the business concerns within a person, but not how to emotionally comfort someone in tears, whom asks for empathy. In such cases SLE may, in an authoritative tone, give logical instructions, “Act immediately! Make this so, and this thus, and I will help you.” They thereby use their strong functions where they don’t successfully operate; in the sphere the SLE’s weak ethics of relations. Here it’s appropriate to consider their personal emotional struggle. Following stormy periods of activity they may find themselves victim to a certain (sometimes very powerful) bout of depression. Their direct activity combined with assumed responsibilities, not only for their own work but that of others as well, can lead to a state of temporary exhaustion and decline of motivation. As a consequence of this depression they are attacked by dark moods. Their fitness for work sharply declines in such periods. However, SLE tries to hide this state from other people; thus providing the impression of being always emotionally guarded, “chained into their armour.” Their “working” tone is also not constant: sometimes when they run into obstacles, concrete or social, they are subjected to flashes of unbridled anger. SLE is characteristic in formal business activity deprived of the emotional heat that irritates their sensitivities.

The SLE, whom appears to others, often seems to be in such good shape that those close to them believe this psycho-type has no need of simple sympathy. However, this is an illusion. Being badly oriented, in regards to the emotional manifestations of people, and constrained by their own feelings, SLE can only externally fabricates the mask of “iron man”, which internally does not exist. Women of this type, particularly, suffer from the fact that close ones fail to develop concern and participation in their lives. With bitterness, SLE yields consciously to the fact that through their independence, resoluteness, hardiness, and by their own will, they will create about themselves the impression of a person, to whom warm sympathy, from others, is not generally necessary. ”

[Beautiful sky]

LSE in contrast seeks out people to vent to about their most troubled things like the relationship between them and their boss or worker or friend colleagues or parents and siblings asking for someone who is a good listener, easy to speak with and is sympathetic and supportive

[grumpyvic81]

It’s easy to get SLE and LSE mixed up due to a lot of similarities on the Ni polr and Fi polr function’ for example with Ni polr and Ni suggestive BOTH LSE and SLE face uncertainty about the future and with their Fi polr and Fi suggestive both can seem weak at relationships. Making them so much alike to the deceptive conflict relationship.

However this is Fi polr’s other side

“Fi – Vulnerable function. When any situations deals with the ability to “catch” moods in others, the tones of attitudes, which present themselves in people, amongst each other, and towards SLE, SLE suffers an internal feeling of nervousness. They are apt to understand the business concerns within a person, but not how to emotionally comfort someone in tears, whom asks for empathy. In such cases SLE may, in an authoritative tone, give logical instructions, “Act immediately! Make this so, and this thus, and I will help you.” They thereby use their strong functions where they don’t successfully operate; in the sphere the SLE’s weak ethics of relations. Here it’s appropriate to consider their personal emotional struggle. Following stormy periods of activity they may find themselves victim to a certain (sometimes very powerful) bout of depression. Their direct activity combined with assumed responsibilities, not only for their own work but that of others as well, can lead to a state of temporary exhaustion and decline of motivation. As a consequence of this depression they are attacked by dark moods. Their fitness for work sharply declines in such periods. However, SLE tries to hide this state from other people; thus providing the impression of being always emotionally guarded, “chained into their armour.” Their “working” tone is also not constant: sometimes when they run into obstacles, concrete or social, they are subjected to flashes of unbridled anger. SLE is characteristic in formal business activity deprived of the emotional heat that irritates their sensitivities.

The SLE, whom appears to others, often seems to be in such good shape that those close to them believe this psycho-type has no need of simple sympathy. However, this is an illusion. Being badly oriented, in regards to the emotional manifestations of people, and constrained by their own feelings, SLE can only externally fabricates the mask of “iron man”, which internally does not exist. Women of this type, particularly, suffer from the fact that close ones fail to develop concern and participation in their lives. With bitterness, SLE yields consciously to the fact that through their independence, resoluteness, hardiness, and by their own will, they will create about themselves the impression of a person, to whom warm sympathy, from others, is not generally necessary. ”

lol why is this one overly romanticised?

All Logical types will have issues with doing all that emotional comforting properly and seeming so very independent blah blah.

LSE in contrast seeks out people to vent to about their most troubled things like the relationship between them and their boss or worker or friend colleagues or parents and siblings asking for someone who is a good listener, easy to speak with and is sympathetic and supportive

I highly doubt that having trust issues with people is this specifically type dependent.

[grumpyvic81]

No, I wasn't manipulated but it feels manipulative.

I was in a relationship for 7 years with SEI, the ESE lasted more like 7 months. SEI was obviously loads better.

OK, I see. To me it feels just disturbing when the tone doesn't seem right or doesn't seem to make sense. Your linking it to how it feels too personal when people want you to open up, yeah.


BTW Normalizing subtype likes rules:

"Let us examine the ideal formula for Normalizing behavior - LRT. In reality the person who carries out the role of the normalizing participant in a group, of course, merely approaches this formula. Moreover to approach the model is possible in two ways - through R (ethical standards) or through L (logical standards).

Normalizing by ethics is primary. It arises for the first time when people are just beginning to stick together, not yet having any formal organization. The psychological state R is expressed as anxiety and conscientiousness, affection for his own, loyalty to traditions. Normalizing by structural logic is secondary, because it is formal in character and arises later.

At its foundation lies the knowledge and observance of laws (“dura lex sed lex”), which requires certain psychological qualities - composure and indifference. Functions L and R reliably support each other: the law-abider is stable not because of the fear of punishment, but from conscientiousness.

A third, additional function for the normalizing behavior is T (intuition of time). The Normalizing man brings stability, since he is measured and systematic, and therefore quite predictable. He has a good memory, which suggests which traditions have stood the test of time. Society is very interested, so that the people with the N-behavior are many. This is especially true of a society which is in a state of Anomie.

Normalizing people, in this way, form the foundation of any society. Without them there would be no order and civilization. The civilized man is, before all else, one who respects laws and standards. Why do you think Robinson Crusoe did not go wild on that uninhabited island? The main reason (although not the only one) should be sought in the fact that, he forcefully kept standards - sensory-hygienic, housekeeping, religious-ethical, and even kept a calendar!"

Do you have a way to reconcile it for yourself? Normalizing being the law-abider with you hating rules on the other hand. Like, the whole main point of Normalizing seems to be that.

[Northstar]

OK, I see. To me it feels just disturbing when the tone doesn't seem right or doesn't seem to make sense. Your linking it to how it feels too personal when people want you to open up, yeah.


BTW Normalizing subtype likes rules:

"Let us examine the ideal formula for Normalizing behavior - LRT. In reality the person who carries out the role of the normalizing participant in a group, of course, merely approaches this formula. Moreover to approach the model is possible in two ways - through R (ethical standards) or through L (logical standards).

Normalizing by ethics is primary. It arises for the first time when people are just beginning to stick together, not yet having any formal organization. The psychological state R is expressed as anxiety and conscientiousness, affection for his own, loyalty to traditions. Normalizing by structural logic is secondary, because it is formal in character and arises later.

At its foundation lies the knowledge and observance of laws (“dura lex sed lex”), which requires certain psychological qualities - composure and indifference. Functions L and R reliably support each other: the law-abider is stable not because of the fear of punishment, but from conscientiousness.

A third, additional function for the normalizing behavior is T (intuition of time). The Normalizing man brings stability, since he is measured and systematic, and therefore quite predictable. He has a good memory, which suggests which traditions have stood the test of time. Society is very interested, so that the people with the N-behavior are many. This is especially true of a society which is in a state of Anomie.

Normalizing people, in this way, form the foundation of any society. Without them there would be no order and civilization. The civilized man is, before all else, one who respects laws and standards. Why do you think Robinson Crusoe did not go wild on that uninhabited island? The main reason (although not the only one) should be sought in the fact that, he forcefully kept standards - sensory-hygienic, housekeeping, religious-ethical, and even kept a calendar!"

Do you have a way to reconcile it for yourself? Normalizing being the law-abider with you hating rules on the other hand. Like, the whole main point of Normalizing seems to be that.

Yeah, I've thought about that. I don't do ethical standards but I do L(ogical) standards for myself. I have my own routines and predictable systematic ways of working with certain things. As well as good memory. But above all I see normalizing as having terminating behavior -> finishing what you started (eventually).

[grumpyvic81]

Yeah, I've thought about that. I don't do ethical standards but I do L(ogical) standards for myself. I have my own routines and predictable systematic ways of working with certain things. As well as good memory. But above all I see normalizing as having terminating behavior -> finishing what you started (eventually).

Yeah, that's what I called being methodical. Having the "predictable systematic ways of working with certain things". If you meant something else by it originally... hope this clarifies then.

Finishing what I start, I relate, yah.

That was J in mbti too.

So it kinda gets to be all a big mess with typology lol.

Do you have a way to summarise the main things about you vs LSI-Se friend? I assume that that was part of what led you to conclude SLE-N for yourself.

[Northstar]

Yeah, that's what I called being methodical. Having the "predictable systematic ways of working with certain things". If you meant something else by it originally... hope this clarifies then.

Finishing what I start, I relate, yah.

That was J in mbti too.

So it kinda gets to be all a big mess with typology lol.

Do you have a way to summarise the main things about you vs LSI-Se friend? I assume that that was part of what led you to conclude SLE-N for yourself.

It's a mess but also a collection of different perspectives and layers. Like I've explained before, I see my information metabolism as being clearly SLE > LSI (extroversion > introversion, perception first). However, in the energy metabolism department I could see a DCNH subtype like N for "IJ" type of terminating behavior. The other terminating subtype would be D(ominating). That could fit too, but as pseudo-temperament I feel "IJ" is a bit closer than "EJ". Obviously, DCNH probably isn't the best and final subtype system but theoretically it's a bit more sound than the inert/contact subtype system, IMO. In that one I'd be SLE-Ti.
It's important to make the distinction in TEM and TIM, otherwise you'll do a lot of simple mistypings due to putting too much weight on "surface temperament".

One way to put it with "introverted extroverts" and "extroverted introverts" is that you notice the surface temperament first, but the longer you interact or observe said person, the more they start to seem like their actual TIM. I seem introverted at first but keep accelerating and increasing contact, whereas people that are extroverted introverts initially seem more extroverted but soon run out of steam and start to retreat into themselves and need to recharge.

Yeah, he's clearly more introverted in terms of information metabolism. He goes deeper into one thing instead of spreading a wide net of interests compared to me. Thinks over things a lot more before acting and in general just seems to act slower. Around introverts I often feel like my "clock speed" is way too high and I get impatient when they keep thinking and don't respond. As a result they make less mistakes than I do, but in the same timeframe that they make the one correct decision, I've had time to make and fix a couple of incorrect ones, still arriving at the correct result faster. He's way more process-oriented, doing things in the "correct order" and not branching out to doing something else until he's done with a particular sub-task. I jump between different things depending on what I feel like doing, though eventually tying all the loose ends but in a completely random order. He's sequential.

[grumpyvic81]

It's a mess but also a collection of different perspectives and layers.

Yeah if only it all wasn't confined into 8 small boxes of IEs.

Like I've explained before, I see my information metabolism as being clearly SLE > LSI (extroversion > introversion, perception first). However, in the energy metabolism department I could see a DCNH subtype like N for "IJ" type of terminating behavior. The other terminating subtype would be D(ominating). That could fit too, but as pseudo-temperament I feel "IJ" is a bit closer than "EJ". Obviously, DCNH probably isn't the best and final subtype system but theoretically it's a bit more sound than the inert/contact subtype system, IMO. In that one I'd be SLE-Ti.
It's important to make the distinction in TEM and TIM, otherwise you'll do a lot of simple mistypings due to putting too much weight on "surface temperament".

One way to put it with "introverted extroverts" and "extroverted introverts" is that you notice the surface temperament first, but the longer you interact or observe said person, the more they start to seem like their actual TIM. I seem introverted at first but keep accelerating and increasing contact, whereas people that are extroverted introverts initially seem more extroverted but soon run out of steam and start to retreat into themselves and need to recharge.

I don't know, I seem introverted at first, then I do this accelerating and increasing contact* etc stuff. But then after a while I enjoy a chance to be alone or unengaged again. I don't *need* to recharge per se, but it's still nice to disengage sometimes.

*: Btw wasn't Normalizing a distant rather than contact subtype;

* contact, terminal, connecting - dominant subtype (D);
* contact, initial, ignoring - creative subtype (C);
* distant, terminal, ignoring - normalizing subtype (N);
* distant, initial, connecting - harmonizing subtype (H).

Yeah, he's clearly more introverted in terms of information metabolism. He goes deeper into one thing instead of spreading a wide net of interests compared to me. Thinks over things a lot more before acting and in general just seems to act slower. Around introverts I often feel like my "clock speed" is way too high and I get impatient when they keep thinking and don't respond. As a result they make less mistakes than I do, but in the same timeframe that they make the one correct decision, I've had time to make and fix a couple of incorrect ones, still arriving at the correct result faster. He's way more process-oriented, doing things in the "correct order" and not branching out to doing something else until he's done with a particular sub-task. I jump between different things depending on what I feel like doing, though eventually tying all the loose ends but in a completely random order. He's sequential.

Is the bolded true for IEIs too?

What makes you type him Se subtype?

[grumpyvic81]

Also when you do those certain things with predictable systematic ways of working with stuff, do you not stay with it (in a sequential way) instead of jumping to something else?

[Northstar]

Yeah if only it all wasn't confined into 8 small boxes of IEs.




I don't know, I seem introverted at first, then I do this accelerating and increasing contact* etc stuff. But then after a while I enjoy a chance to be alone or unengaged again. I don't *need* to recharge per se, but it's still nice to disengage sometimes.

*: Btw wasn't Normalizing a distant rather than contact subtype;

* contact, terminal, connecting - dominant subtype (D);
* contact, initial, ignoring - creative subtype (C);
* distant, terminal, ignoring - normalizing subtype (N);
* distant, initial, connecting - harmonizing subtype (H).





Is the bolded true for IEIs too?

What makes you type him Se subtype?

Yeah, Contact would kinda make sense according to the theory. I don't freeze in times of stress, I get more agitated but probably too much so that it decreases my effectiveness. So not sure how to judge that.
Connecting/ignoring as paying attention to the external environment is difficult to judge. I'm not ruling out Dominant subtype either, but as a whole Normalizing also seems plausible.

IEI don't go that much into their heads during an active discussion because of their Je, as compared to LII and LSI for example. They can be pretty rapid-fire for a while but then need to retreat and recharge, which is okay because I know they'll be back.
They're typically the extroverted introverts, especially Fe-heavy subtypes.

The LSI-Se (or Creative) fits that description very well, definitely not Normalizing. It's again an obvious contrast to another friend who is an obvious LSI-Normalizing (or Ti sub).

[grumpyvic81]

Yeah, Contact would kinda make sense according to the theory. I don't freeze in times of stress, I get more agitated but probably too much so that it decreases my effectiveness. So not sure how to judge that.
Connecting/ignoring as paying attention to the external environment is difficult to judge. I'm not ruling out Dominant subtype either, but as a whole Normalizing also seems plausible.

IEI don't go that much into their heads during an active discussion because of their Je, as compared to LII and LSI for example. They can be pretty rapid-fire for a while but then need to retreat and recharge, which is okay because I know they'll be back.
They're typically the extroverted introverts, especially Fe-heavy subtypes.

The LSI-Se (or Creative) fits that description very well, definitely not Normalizing. It's again an obvious contrast to another friend who is an obvious LSI-Normalizing (or Ti sub).

So with the same Fe egos around or whatever good company around, he has to go and recharge way faster than you?

[Northstar]

So with the same Fe egos around or whatever good company around, he has to go and recharge way faster than you?

Hmm yeah, now that you mention it I think so. He seems to have more of a need to retreat and usually when hanging out he's the one that leaves first. I'm always among the last ones remaining during a night out. The "Ti sub" guy doesn't do nights out at all.

[grumpyvic81]

Hmm yeah, now that you mention it I think so. He seems to have more of a need to retreat and usually when hanging out he's the one that leaves first. I'm always among the last ones remaining during a night out. The "Ti sub" guy doesn't do nights out at all.

Does he leave to be with his family, though?

Also (still comparing all this with LSI-Se) when you do those certain things with predictable systematic ways of working with stuff, do you not stay with it (in a sequential way) instead of jumping to something else?

[Northstar]

Does he leave to be with his family, though?

Also (still comparing all this with LSI-Se) when you do those certain things with predictable systematic ways of working with stuff, do you not stay with it (in a sequential way) instead of jumping to something else?

Lol, no. He just tires of interaction.

I don't really know what you mean by that, you're getting too specific at his point. I just notice patterns that I tend to do things much the same way when I repeat a task, use similar naming schemes for things and so on. It depends on my mood, If I feel like doing something then I could stick with it to the end. If not, I'll switch to something more interesting and switch back later. I prefer to postpone stuff I don't feel like doing at the moment.

[grumpyvic81]

Lol, no. He just tires of interaction.

I don't really know what you mean by that, you're getting too specific at his point. I just notice patterns that I tend to do things much the same way when I repeat a task, use similar naming schemes for things and so on. It depends on my mood, If I feel like doing something then I could stick with it to the end. If not, I'll switch to something more interesting and switch back later. I prefer to postpone stuff I don't feel like doing at the moment.

OK it's just if I had a family, I'd be more likely to leave early too.


And well I was just trying to see how his being sequential would be different from your way of being methodical, tho' you originally didn't consider yourself methodical. This here btw didn't sound like you are a terminating subtype as you do switch to other things instead of finishing.

Sorry I'm not trying to be nitpicky, I realise all this shit is messy anyway, that's normal like I said

[Northstar]

OK it's just if I had a family, I'd be more likely to leave early too.


And well I was just trying to see how his being sequential would be different from your way of being methodical, tho' you originally didn't consider yourself methodical. This here btw didn't sound like you are a terminating subtype as you do switch to other things instead of finishing.

Sorry I'm not trying to be nitpicky, I realise all this shit is messy anyway, that's normal like I said

Nah, you need to get out sometimes and then you want to do it properly instead of getting home too early. Anyway, most of those experiences were before kids, we've known each other for more than a decade.

I don't think methodical is a fitting word. I seldom follow a procedure or process, it's just getting shit done fast and roughly right. The difference in him is that compared to me he works slower and more carefully. Often cleaning and polishing things and getting it "just right" aesthetically. I don't have the patience, I just want results quickly and can't be bothered with cleaning up. I'd rather pay someone to do that boring stuff. For example, he likes to do careful painting and metalwork, I can't concentrate on that stuff. I often inadvertently cause damage by being too rough.

For me, the terminating part means that eventually you want to finish things instead of constantly just starting new stuff and leaving it unfinished. That does happen but I still try to return and finish up and leave no loose ends. It just might happen much later down the line. I don't like starting way too many initiatives without closing down the existing ones.

Putting them into more famliar terms, I've seen contact/distancing as a representation of extroversion/introversion within a type. terminating/initiating as a the scale of rationality/irrationality within a type. Finally, ignoring/connecting as scale of static/dynamic within a type.

I identify with being somewhat towards introverted, rational and static within these scales inside my type. Usually in dichotomy tests (MBTI and Socionics) I tend to fall close to the middle of E/I dichotomy, clearly to the P side of P/J dichotomy (but not at the very end). I haven't seen many tests for static/dynamic but I would describe myself as more ignoring than sensitive to changes in environment. I'm not very attached to my environment and can easily uproot myself and move elsewhere, not getting homesick or missing familiar things. I don't decorate my home and pay little attention to its coziness.

As for the friend for comparison, while I've described him as Creative (or -Se, more extroverted/contact) subtype, it might be possible that he's Dominant subtype as well. Contact subtype is certain, but I could see terminating dichotomy for him too. And, connecting instead of ignoring due to him paying much more attention to the cleanliness and presentability of his house, yard and garage. I'm certain he isn't a normalizing or harmonizing LSI, anyway.
In case he is D sub and I'm N sub, it would fit to good relations since that is "DCNH duality" as in compatible subtypes.

Putting this in practice, a LSI-D might look like LSE on the surface but LSI would come into focus with further observation. The same with SLE-N looking like LSI on the surface but digging deeper SLE would soon become obvious.

[inaLim]

Connecting would be everything dynamic. Te, Fe, Ni, & Si. Changes in the environment means something like physical comfort when you're talking about Si, but it also means social maneuvering (Fe), work activity (Te), and trajectory/patterns of events (Ni).

[Northstar]

Yeah, that would make sense considering what functions are accentuated with connecting DCNH subtypes.

Then again, this (http://wikisocion.net/en/index.php?t..._Vera_Borisova) states:
Subtype-forming qualities have no relation to socionic dichotomies (both the principal dichotomies and Reinin ones). The essence of the scale connecting / ignoring is in the principle of contact / feedback from the environment: connector independently establishes connections, strives to hold onto them, attaches, reacts not as much to the positive than the negative impulses, in an effort to convert them ("why is he not paying attention to me? he must be engaged!"); ignorer operates on the principle of mirror response: "as you react to me, so do I react to you". V. Gulenko used the scale terminating / initiating for distinguishing two subtypes, correlating it with the strengthening of the 1st function (terminal subtype) or 2nd function (initial subtype) [5]. The main difference, however, is that the initial subtype starts (initiates, triggers), and his performance is higher at the beginning but to complete the work difficult for him. For the terminal subtype it's more difficult to start on something, but towards the end of his performance increases.


Seems like terminating and ignoring would fit me. That leaves only normalizing on the table. With a slight possibility for creative considering how sure I'm about being ignoring vs connecting and terminating vs initiating.

[Sol]

The Lost Viking

video

[Northstar]

The Lost Viking

video

You think I'd enjoy that movie, or what do you mean? I kinda liked the Vikings series although I didn't watch more than a few episodes, I rarely have the patience to sit and watch movies or series without starting to do something else at the same time.

[inaLim]

Yeah, that would make sense considering what functions are accentuated with connecting DCNH subtypes.

Then again, this (http://wikisocion.net/en/index.php?t..._Vera_Borisova) states:
Subtype-forming qualities have no relation to socionic dichotomies (both the principal dichotomies and Reinin ones). The essence of the scale connecting / ignoring is in the principle of contact / feedback from the environment: connector independently establishes connections, strives to hold onto them, attaches, reacts not as much to the positive than the negative impulses, in an effort to convert them ("why is he not paying attention to me? he must be engaged!"); ignorer operates on the principle of mirror response: "as you react to me, so do I react to you". V. Gulenko used the scale terminating / initiating for distinguishing two subtypes, correlating it with the strengthening of the 1st function (terminal subtype) or 2nd function (initial subtype) [5]. The main difference, however, is that the initial subtype starts (initiates, triggers), and his performance is higher at the beginning but to complete the work difficult for him. For the terminal subtype it's more difficult to start on something, but towards the end of his performance increases.


Seems like terminating and ignoring would fit me. That leaves only normalizing on the table. With a slight possibility for creative considering how sure I'm about being ignoring vs connecting and terminating vs initiating.

Unless Gulenko retracted or revised his theory, he approached it from the POV of both dichotomies and functions (Holographic Panoramic Ne)

Connecting / Ignoring "is the subtype refinement of the classical dichotomy static/dynamic."
Terminating / Initiating "is a concretization of the dichotomy rationality/irrationality"

"Strengthening the linear-assertive functions , whatever position this pair occupies within the framework of the sociomodel, forms a dominant subtype (D)."
"Strengthening the receptive-adaptive functions engenders a harmonizing subtype (H)."


(I don't speak Russian or have Gulenko's book, so maybe he changed it)


I agree terminating fits how you describe yourself. I'm not sure your idea of connecting is accurate if you pick and choose Borisova instead of Gulenko. DCNH is already fringe socionics, now we're even further out into someone else's interpretation of DCNH.


http://wikisocion.net/en/index.php?t..._DCNH_Subtypes

System of DCNH Subtypes
Viktor Gulenko, 2006.The problem of intra-type differences

Why are people of one type so different? This question has long disturbed every sober-minded practitioner of socionics. How can two carriers of one and the same psychological system, which has an identical structure, demonstrate in one and the same situation such different modes of behavior?


Conduct a simple experiment. Gather 3-4 people of a single type, it is unimportant which type their school’s specialist determined. Give them any mutually accessible task (a jointly solved intellectual puzzle or a game or such) and observe their behavior. You will see that in spite of their identical type, some of them will be more active, others more passive, some more resourceful, others more conservative and so on. The most interesting thing is that the greater the number of representatives of the same type gathered, the greater the number of differences will you reveal between them. Thus the depth of the typology is possible to increase even further.

The situation is comparable to holding a stamp in your hands, which does not change in the course of time, yet creates a different imprint with every use. So it is, within the psyche of a real person - a carrier of a type - there is always present, in effect, an admixture of some other type. Here I call this admixture "subtype," or variation of the type.

Recall isomerism – the ability of a chemical compound, without changing its composition, to form substances with different properties. Subtypes are nothing more than unique psychological isomers. The existence of varieties of a type is a completely normal phenomenon within the framework of a biological outline.

I proposed long ago a sufficiently systematic solution to the problem of intra-type differences near the end of the 1980s. In this report I would like to present a contemporary appraisal of the problem.

Purely theoretically, the subtype problem can be solved in two ways.

The first way lies through the introduction of special dichotomies. With respect to the customary common type dichotomies, they bear a more concrete nature, thus coming out as lower level factors. I call this procedure combinatorial-dichotomous.


The alternate path examines the strengthening of various functions within the framework of the classical sociomodel (Model A). The fact is that the manifestation (and development) of a function is not [always] equal to its position – its hierarchical place within the structure of the psyche. In spite of being equally located, i.e. occupying one and the same position in the sociomodel, functions can have completely different degrees of manifestation. This arrangement, according to the tenets of this approach, forms the subtype’s special behavioral features. This concept, in contrast to the combinatorial-dichotomous approach mentioned above, can be named functional-positional.

Three pairs of dichotomies

First dichotomy: contacting/distancing.
The first pole of this dichotomy represents the predominance of the need for contact and interaction, and the second pole represents the need to distance. Clearly expressed extroverts, as well as extroverted introverts, fall into the "contacting" category. Clearly expressed introverts, as well as introverted extroverts – those extroverts who avoid intensive contact – fall into the distancing category. The scale of vertness is thus split into four inner gradations.

Contact / Distant is basically social vs reclusive; MBTI extroversion / MBTI introversion.

Second dichotomy: terminating/initiating.I understand "terminating" as the ability to finish what was started and a tendency towards ordering/regulation, and "initiating" as the opposite tendency to initiate and to easily move on to something else, with an accompanying disorder in matters and affairs. As you see, this is a concretization of the already familiar to the reader dichotomy rationality/irrationality. It would be incorrect to think that pristine order reigns in the house of any person of rational type, that this person very clearly plans everything, and that any person of irrational type throws around his things and gets burdened by planning. In reality, between two of these extreme poles there are two more intervening gradations.

Clearly expressed rationals and orderly irrationals belong to the "terminating" pole, while clearly expressed irrationals and disorderly rationals belong to the "initiating" pole.

Terminal / Initial is something like what MBTI wants J / P to mean.

And the third additional dichotomy is connecting/ignoring.
The basis for this scale is assumed to be the level of sensitivity to changes in the environment. Connectors are very sensitive to such changes, whereas ignorers, as the name suggests, are capable of not paying any attention to this. This polarity is the subtype refinement of the classical dichotomy static/dynamic.

Strengthening the linear-assertive functions , whatever position this pair occupies within the framework of the sociomodel, forms a dominant subtype (D).
Strengthening the receptive-adaptive functions engenders a harmonizing subtype (H).

Implicit relation between dynamic and connecting