Type Poll - IJ Edition
I think most people think I'm an IJ of some kind. There might be some who think I'm another temperament, but there seems to be a consensus going in the IJ direction. Here's another poll to see what people think. This one's public, unlike the first.
Participate if you want. If you're not interested, just ignore this thread.
I remember your thread with opinion alike why conflicters are bad and should be avoided. There was expressed rather strict relation. Ne types are easier to accept differences and possible negative in people.
It's hard to say your talking style as soft and emotional. What is expected from F, especially base Fi types.
LSI was your 2nd type in the profile. It seems as most possible. ESI is 2nd possible. The lack of video for nonverbal makes hard to understand your type with assurance. You may use tests and other ways to check your type.
ISFj. Still thinking about the subtype.
You are EII to me. In our video conversation you reacted in one very specific way which spoke of Fi to me. And you seem to like Ne -aspects of things I think you are very much EII
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
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:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I misclicked. I wanted to pick ESI. I used to think EII from our brief interactions a while ago, but your subsequent posts make me think ESI, simply because you are definitely more grounded and forceful (with your words, the way you express yourself) than any EII I've ever met.
I don't think you have enough Se to be considered ESI.
What's your definition of Se, and why do you think I don't have enough to be ESI?Originally Posted by Tommy
I've never seen you talking about something that would indicate the above.Se as Creative Function
The individual takes direct action to accomplish his goals and desires in the face of external obstacles, and also the interests of his close friends, family, or associates. This may involve prodding others to take necessary action, deliberately applying pressure in specific situations, or abruptly taking on an organizational role. The individual does not generally seek out confrontation, but he is also not afraid of it. He takes his responsibilities seriously and tends to perform them diligently and with care. He expects the same of others.
That description seems kinda laden with value statements. Especially in the last two sentences, "He takes his responsibilities seriously and tends to perform them diligently and with care. He expects the same of others." This stuff is more stereotypical "what it takes to be a morally good person" fluff than a description of Se or creative Se. Socionics is beyond morality. Also the first part and last part are a bit contradictory: he does what he wants and he does what he's supposed to. Lol. Basically the only part that resembles an actual Se description is the application of force.
But you also won't see a lot of description of aggressive behavior from gamma SFs I think because they are pseudovictim: they're uncomfortable with seeing aggressive traits in themselves, just as the NTs don't like seeing themselves as victims. They both tend to engage in compensatory behavior. The SFs victimize themselves (or allow themselves to be victimized*) to avoid being aggressive and the NTs aggressivize themselves to avoid being victims. Note that I'm using the Socionics definition of aggressor/victim and not a dictionary definition. It might be because of Fi related empathy that they don't like seeing aggressive or forceful traits in themselves or performing them, even if they're capable of doing so. They don't like hurting others, so they go a bit too far sometimes into making sure that they don't, to the point where they can be liable to becoming victims themselves.
*I realize saying it this way could be prone to misinterpretation. Victims in the everyday sense of the term are not responsible for abuse.
Last edited by Aramas; 07-01-2020 at 07:40 PM.
That sounds more like rationalization than going by theory, honestly.
The definition of Se Creative the site gives is a spot on description for ESI. You can argue that a lot of ppl are like that, but in fact, not all ppl take for example, direct action to accomplish goals and desires and face obstacles willingly. In the same way, not all ppl take action to direct others or abruptly take organizational role. Not all ppl is diligent neither responsible. Its likely most ppl would like to find themselves inside the spectrum, though, even if they don't match with it. No one would like to be called irresponsible or careless, or lazy or wimp. To find your type you have to be able to see and accept your true strengths and failures.
Last edited by Millen; 07-01-2020 at 08:25 PM.
You're missing my point. My point is that people in every quadra are going to be lazy, careless, and wimps. Those are character traits, not Socionics. Probably one of the biggest issues with descriptions is that they mix character traits up with the theory. There are definitely unconfident Se doms out there in the universe along with lazy and irresponsible LSEs. Most of us acknowledge that descriptions that say certain types will have short or long haircuts are probably overgeneralizing or are just based on the author's fantasy or ideal, but we haven't gotten to the point yet where we can see the theory apart from character traits. Socionics is really abstract, and it's a kind of abstraction that's hard to put into words.
I'm ok with using descriptions if they're useful, but I won't treat them as authorities. Socionics is pretty new, and we're all just researchers.
As far as seeing and accepting strengths and failures, maybe maybe not. VI makes quick work of a lot of the typing process when it can be applied.
I'm not going to keep debating with you though. I notice we have a tendency to disagree with one another and that's fine.
You seem to have an N Ti understanding of theory, where it lacks concrete application of a personality trait and just limits to some sort of happening on an abstract scheme that doesn't affect how ppl behave in the world. It basically contradicts the central idea of socionics. Its not taking descriptions as authority, is that if you desire to invent a new meaning of elements for typing yourself, you are probably just creating a different theory that can't be called "socionics" yet.
In any case, thanks for the example, that was what I meant for lacking Se. You are clearly Ne, probably Ti. But feel free to self type as what you like.
Last edited by Millen; 07-01-2020 at 08:34 PM.
On 2nd thought, I could see the potential for Ne devaluing. *removed in case offensive and I apologize if so, but basically said I think I could see Ne-devaluing* Also I've already talked about certain aspects of your humor seeming rather un-EII'ish to me, though I think this could have some to do with upbringing and the like as well.
ESI is quite possible. You still seem more ethics-based than logic-based based on time I've spent with you in video chat.
Last edited by thegreenfaerie; 07-02-2020 at 12:52 AM.
I don't think we're conflictors but that's all I know.
I'm interested in hearing more about your thought process, because I've never seen anyone think like that to type someone haha.
Very good logic. I like this for some reason.it's ... assimilation of titbits followed by sifting/screening of the less possible typesBecause I wanna be a T-type.
a couple of impressions:
- I noticed you're a creator of threads that spur constructive discussion of how the theory plays out in real life, observable scenarios
- ESE and EIE embellish and dramatise their observations via Fe , which could be viewed as diluting , over-romanticising, or even censoring the raw truth. based on posts of yours i've absorbed you seek more the un-doctored barebones take; "all the gory details". Fe-ego dual comes with greater emotional volatility and appeasement than you seem receptive to. would you find that more charming/uplifting than grating?
hope that helps explain how i arrived at the idea.
I don't think I would.... Although it has been exciting once or twice when it was very sudden and brief, and unexpected. And it might not have been by an ExFx type.Fe-ego dual comes with greater emotional volatility and appeasement than you seem receptive to. would you find that more charming/uplifting than grating?
This is from http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...cation_styles: "Their position in a conversation is an active search for feelings." I feel like more than just expressing their own emotions, there is also an attempt to get emotionality out of their conversational partners, to move them in some way with the expression of their own feelings. To get a response, a reaction. I don't really appreciate that myself, and I find it disturbing of my own experience. I don't like being probed by those types of feelings or being searched out like that.
Didn't you have a mustache?
Equals equals. It is known, khaleesi.
I know. I was messing around.
LIE
Now that I think of it, you remind me of an LIE I knew once for a little while. And it was not necessarily just what you said but that you said it lol.
Maybe it just increases your self esteem because you value that typing more than LSE.
Sometimes going with what you want is the right direction though.
This is my thread, so shhh?
Among possible LSI which think themselves as EII is @toska
He seem to assign EII to men mostly of T types in his famouses list. Prefers physiognomy (S related) instead of intuitive VI which is based on Ne. On a photo has cold, non-emotional sight. His talking here is not emotional too.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
