I'll bet Beta NF. EIE over IEI.Originally Posted by Rune
I'll bet Beta NF. EIE over IEI.
Oooh I want to guess
EIE-N
@Maromi is an ILI-N typed by Gulenko, he fakes being LII for whatever reason. Feel free to add him to the list.
Yes it could be (and yes i am using type functions description). I feel neither focused on sensing and intuition, mostly on ideas (often inspired by intuitive types, sometimes by sensory types when it relates to more practical things like health), trying to gain some understanding about things, not really producing ideas myself like could be expected of an intuitive i guess.
Harmonizing subtype is making the most sense for accentuation of Ni and Fi, considering LSI type.
Though, on the subtype description of LSI by Victor Gulenko https://socioniks.net/en/article/?id=224, there is quite a lot I don't recognize myself on, actually I recognize myself more for other IxTx of Normalising or Harmonizing subtypes :
"Choosing food.
He rarely puts things in order on his own territory.
He values things primarily from their aesthetic side.
Bad organizer, albeit ambitious.
Provides small services, is helpful and useful.
Due to lengthy procedures, he tends to be late for events."
Functions I relate more between LII and LSI based on description of this same website https://socioniks.net/article/?id=132 and https://socioniks.net/article/?id=134 :
Si LII > Si LSI
Se LII > Se LSI
Ni LII = Ni LSI
Ne LII < Ne LSI
Ti LII = Ti LSI
Te LII < Te LSI
Fi LII > Fi LSI
Fe LII < Fe LSI
LII > LSI on S functions description, could be LII-N (Ti Si accentuation)
LSI > LII on N functions description, could be LSI-H (Ni Fi accentuation)
Part of the diagnostic of Victor Gulenko about S / N :
"Michael loves to exercise. He enjoys running every day."
It makes me feel better, not sure it gives strong inclination toward S or N, i have done some weightlifting but stopped after a few months, i will retry very soon but I don't know if i have the motivation for that.
"I think he could do repair work, too. Perhaps he doesn't always want to do it, and those around him may consider him lazy."
I guess I could like everyone if not the choice.
"Michael knows how to cook, understands the combination of different foods, which is more common for sensory people."
Cooking basic fruits and vegetables with some meat don't seem complicated, I don't know if it is for some, though I am not enjoying cooking (and other chores).
"Although he is not very orderly in everyday life, he is nevertheless good at remembering the arrangement of things in space and understands what order is. This particular type of control over the environment characterizes just people with sensorics."
When it is my stuff yes i remember well if something have been moved, other people stuff i barely notice though (if i first noticed their stuffs).
"Logic with sensing gives the technical and managerial setup for the activity."
It doesn't seem to be enough to say I am S types, so I guess he perceived me LSI by non verbal, just backed by those very limited sensory manifestations.
I received questions what kind of dreams do you have and how do you remember information ?
- I almost never remember my dreams since a very long time, from what I remember some kind of superhero fighting villains and then gaining recognition, when I was a kid It was dark more nightmare than dream because I watched too much dark movies and TV shows.
- Mostly audibly, repeating myself the information i want to remember.
I visualise almost nothing, my mind is a void outside of thoughts.
Some "random" thoughts :
- I enjoy fictional extreme violence when it is the "nice" guys who punish / eliminate the bad guys (the punisher, spartacus, banshee, the boys, dexter...).
- I enjoy heavy Ni movies and TV shows too (like Hannibal).
- I enjoy beta music the most, but considering it's by far the biggest quadra in the entertainment, I don't know if it says much.
- In thoughts, I have radical ideas of punishment for bad people, even making them disappear seems fine to me if it is necessary to make the world a better place.
I don't know if those anecdotes make sense for LII.
- I want to believe to be able to stand by my principles or ideas against very threatening conditions even if it means I would likely die earlier as a result, that's mostly the strenght to endure a lot of pain the questionning, because not much to think or feel once dead anyway.
- I am interested to know where things are heading, I appreciate people talking about prophecies even if i am a bit skeptical about their realisations, like this one who though connects with current times : http://www.syti.net/Prophetie.html.
This website is very Ni overall.
- I enjoy competitive games (most of my video games played were competitive, younger FPS then Dota 2, then now mostly board games and card games), which is the use of Se in a regulated context.
There is a decent amount of argument for valued Se/Ni here but is Se really ego ?
Considering what I said before about my lack of observation but like you said @ipbanned maybe it's just accentuation of Ni.
Yeah !!("extreme violence" aside) I bet you like Steven Seagal movies !
That's what I call a Batman fantasy. I have those too but it's very rare. That reflects a certain sense of justice and a desire to defend the widow and the orphan.- In thoughts, I have radical ideas of punishment for bad people, even making them disappear seems fine to me if it is necessary to make the world a better place.
We all have our limits. People who are actually able to resist the "question" are exceptionally rare. All this mindset is not very LII imho, that's more Rambo than ColumboI don't know if those anecdotes make sense for LII.
- I want to believe to be able to stand by my principles or ideas against very threatening conditions even if it means I would likely die earlier as a result, that's mostly the strenght to endure a lot of pain the questionning, because not much to think or feel once dead anyway.
That's Typical of LSI's Ni. LII are not interested in Ni stuff, they just do it. Furthermore, the "prophetic/Mystical" view of Ni is more of an LSI "need" so to speak (maybe it was a Beta thing in general ?). LII are far from this particular side of Ni.- I am interested to know where things are heading, I appreciate people talking about prophecies even if i am a bit skeptical about their realisations, like this one who though connects with current times : http://www.syti.net/Prophetie.html.
This website is very Ni overall.
I think it is a fair question. Do you have reasons to believe otherwise ?- I enjoy competitive games (most of my video games played were competitive, younger FPS then Dota 2, then now mostly board games and card games), which is the use of Se in a regulated context.
There is a decent amount of argument for valued Se/Ni here but is Se really ego ?
He acted in some great action movies yes !Yeah !!
Everything I just said above is mostly mental, maybe like you said less likely to have such thoughts from LII.I think it is a fair question. Do you have reasons to believe otherwise ?
I lack attention to environment overall, and not doing much manual activities.
But maybe due to Harmonizing subtypes like @ipbanned said.
All that, + Victor Gulenko typing, considering he had not that much input on the N/S dichotomies from the verbal, I guess he has had some important visual cues, recognizing LSI patterns.
So I am beginning to think that LSI type make more sense.
Numbers!
LSI 12
EIE 10
ILI 5
IEI 4
SLE 4
SEE 1
IEE 1
ILE 1
LII 1
Fun facts:
39 people got typed as of now.
9/16 types are represented.
Top 5 types make up 89.7% of forum people typed.
Top 5 types are the only ones that are represented in multiples.
All beta quadra types are represented among top 5, plus ILI.
Beta rationals make up a majority of forum people typed (22/39 or 56.4%)
Most common activity orientation is technical-managerial 16/39 (41%, inspector, marshall), followed by humanitarian-artistic 15/39 (38.46%, mentor, lyric, advisor), then expert-researching 7/39 (17.9%, critic, analyist, seeker)) and finally social-communicative 1/39 (2.5%, politician).
By dichotomies:
statics 20 > dynamics 19
introversion 22 > extroversion 17
sensing 20 > intuition 19
logic 23 > ethics 16
rationality 23 > 16
ascending 32 > descending 7
central 36 > peripheral 3
The central to peripheral ratio makes a lot of sense.
These are sincerely cool and pretty interesting.
Thank you for posting.
Nope
Everyone has biases which are hard for them, themselves, to see. If we could see our own biases, we'd probably die out as a species.
Isn't Gulenko's wife LSI? Or am I misremembering this?
For a while, I typed half the new people here as ESI. Lol. I wonder why I did that? Was I seeing what I wanted to see?
Fortunately, I don't have an axe to grind here, and 98% of the time, my typings of newcomers were changed by other people. It's a good thing that my livelihood didn't depend on my being "right".
Gulenko's wife is EIE if I recall correctly.
It could be biases; Or it could be that this forum is massively populated by beta types, and/or that beta types are more likely to be willing to pay to get typed by Gulenko.
I have heard EIE also.
I kinda hesitated to post these numbers because I knew the whole "Gulenko types too many betas" thing would come up. I don't really want to get into this debate, with anyone, sorry. It's pretty unproductive, I just thought the numbers were interesting.
I should have said that it's a good thing that my livelihood doesn't depend on my being right about my guesses as to someone's Socionics type.*
My criticism of Gulenko's oddly skewed typings is based on an Upton Sinclair quote.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
This may or may not apply to Gulenko, but when your salary or your reputation depends on you being "right" about something that is essentially unprovable, then it is not in your interest to admit the possibility that you are wrong, especially if you are wrong because of biases which you can't even see.
Furthermore, when something is unprovable, then there really is no "wrong".
Sorry if I didn't explain that well enough in my first post on this sad topic.
*
They ARE interesting, for many reasons. I think it is very, very hard to collect data and to draw sound conclusions from it.
That's true. It is. Data is always something to point in a certain direction, not anything absolute.
EIE wife and kids are LSI and EIE (wikisocion).
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
It makes a lot more sense for people who see entity X as being "more right" (in this case, Gulenko is entity X) to pay 100-120 dollars for a typing than it does for people who see all viewpoints as more or less valid. Is there something I'm missing?
These are sincerely cool and pretty interesting.
Thank you for posting.valuing.
Before:
After:
When it comes to the scope of Model G, Gulenko is the one who defined the model, but having read his book of type descriptions, I don't think he's always applying it correctly. It's like his type descriptions and function breakdowns are detached from his typing methodology.
When it comes to socionics in general, I don't think there's one authority, and it's not useful to have one because in the end it's just a way of giving names to things we all see in people. Everyone categorizes people, just without using the terminology of socionics.
In my opinion, all models of human personality currently existing are wrong, they're just wrong in different degrees and about different things. The reality is infinitely more complex than what these simple models account for. They can be useful for sure, but too many things attributed to type are just random genetic traits that don't neatly form coherent clusterings around a single type.
That being said, I think Gulenko's statistics smell like a systemic bias. Obviously there's biased sampling to begin with and he's done some correct typings as well, but there's some kind of methodological bias in there. Also the central/peripheral skew thing is something I just don't see any logical reason for, Ne/Si seems common in my experience so Gulenko might be culturally biased. Without any actual statistical research on type distribution it's just a bunch of opinions and personal anecdotes.
I see your point, but given the fact that the guy is a result over process type, I'm still willing to give him a generous interpretation, overlooking the peculiarities of his thinking to see the logic of the sample itself.
I'm more optimistic. I think each model is more or less right, but they cover different aspects, layers, and dimensions of personality and psychology.In my opinion, all models of human personality currently existing are wrong, they're just wrong in different degrees and about different things. The reality is infinitely more complex than what these simple models account for. They can be useful for sure, but too many things attributed to type are just random genetic traits that don't neatly form coherent clusterings around a single type.
I'm riffing off this article: https://socioniks.net/en/article/?id=156That being said, I think Gulenko's statistics smell like a systemic bias. Obviously there's biased sampling to begin with and he's done some correct typings as well, but there's some kind of methodological bias in there. Also the central/peripheral skew thing is something I just don't see any logical reason for, Ne/Si seems common in my experience so Gulenko might be culturally biased. Without any actual statistical research on type distribution it's just a bunch of opinions and personal anecdotes.
To paraphrase, you essentially have two camps of people. One camp prefers to have a central vision (ie. valuing Ni) and the other camp prefers to have a plurality of vision (ie. valuing Ne). Those that prefer to have a central vision prefer to push the limits of said vision and develop the depth of their vision as much as possible. Those that prefer to have a plurality of vision prefer to have a more "live and let live" approach to intuitively based perspectives, content with a broader scope (that I would contest has a greater tendency toward dabbling in abstract perspectives).Central and peripheral in socionics
In a general sense, the sign "centrality" means the potential readiness (as well as an unconscious craving) of the psyche for pushing itself to limits in conditions of fierce competition (or forced cooperation). "Peripherality", respectively, characterizes the opposite pole — a predisposition to moderate loads and a preference for voluntary cooperation over competition.
1. Intellectual level. Central and peripheral in socionics
The "centrality" sign forms a unipolar picture of the world. It is based on the belief that someone is more right than the other. Central intellectuals tend to have more (especially secret) knowledge than others, and claim to have a deeper understanding of things. They are characterized by attempts to deduce all the consequences from one beginning. Knowledge is primarily a tool of influence: a way to achieve competitive advantages. A peripheral intellectual is quickly slowed down and displaced if it gets into a forced mode and is forced to compete for a place in the hierarchy. He is a stranger to hierarchy and ambition.
2. At the social level. Central and peripheral in socionics
Centrality controls the ability to seize or retain power in one way or another (from authoritarianism to sophisticated technologies for manipulating elections). The central types predominate over the peripheral ones in the lists of rulers, businessmen, cultural figures and other celebrities.
Peripheral types themselves do not seize power and are not able to retain it. If they find themselves at the top of formal structures (for example, the state machine), it is only as satellites or allies of the central types.
3. On a psychological level. Central and peripheral in socionics
Between the central and peripheral there is a contrast in the values of life. The aggressive-victim value complex characterizes the central ones. It is realized through the possession of intimidating power (its use is not necessary) or through the need to feel like a victim. The caring-infantile complex characterizes the peripheral ones. This complex acts as a need to take care of someone who is poorly adapted to the material world, or to adequately accept such care (not to take the caring one for granted).
4. On the physical level. Central and peripheral in socionics
The central ones have a tendency to use doping agents to spur the body when overloading occurs. We are talking not only about smoking and alcohol, but also about the use of any other substances that have tonic or hallucinogenic characteristics. For the central ones, periodic checks of their competitiveness are vital: training in extreme situations, long hikes and other attempts to find the limit, conquer the top, prove that I can, etc. The peripheral ones are born for a more relaxed life without shocks and the need for excessive stimulation.
Consequently, you have one group that's much more likely to push themselves extreme measures to realize their vision, including paying 100+ dollars to have themselves typed by an authority who has a deep understanding of the subject matter. You even have a subgroup (Betas) for whom money isn't as much of an object. Therefore, I think it makes a lot of sense that Betas are more likely to get typed by Gulenko, while Deltas are least likely. Bias is literally the shape of things you're dealing with when it comes to personality types that display different motivations, so it's important to parse out the factors of the system itself before looking at the biases of the creator if you really want to give Gulenko, Aushra, and the rest of them a generous, fair, objective, and critical interpretation.
I don't really believe in this dichotomy the way it's defined and especially when it comes to him typing people as central when according to his own description they should rather be peripheral.
Personally I didn't pay Gulenko his hundred bucks because I believed that he would be correct in typing me, I paid it (not a significant amount of money for me) to have a little fun with the "Gulenko Cult" (mostly Kiana) who were claiming Gulenko would never type me SLE. It was worth the amusement when he did, though it's less impressive now seeing he types most people central / beta. However, I really do detest all kinds of cultish behavior and refuse to put anyone on a pedestal, I never had idols or heroes either, the whole mindset of glorifying a person is alien to me. So yes, I was typed beta like most others, but my motivation had absolutely nothing to do with a vision or belief in authority. In fact, I find zealous visionaries, prophets, cults and religions all very detestable. All that is behind a lot of the evil that has happened in the world, and substituting adoration, obedience and belief for critical thinking.
Do you view yourself as an authority?
No, except for when it comes to defining myself.
Could you explain this a bit more for me? I'm of the mind that many of the traits and dichotomies can be confused when identified in behavior. For example, peripheral can look like ascending and vise versa because ascending types have a certain preference toward relativistic thinking.
Why would Ti/Fe vs Te/Fi somehow be confused with Ni/Se and Ne/Si? I prefer those terms because they're less ambiguous than peripheral/central and ascending/descending which aren't very commonly used and unnecessary window dressing. I'm not sure why you assign relativistic thinking to Ti either, or if so then Fi would do the same thing.
The description of central makes it seem like anyone with even a hint of competitiveness (situational or not) would be central, but the bolded text is even more silly "The "centrality" sign forms a unipolar picture of the world. It is based on the belief that someone is more right than the other."
There is hardly a person in this world who doesn't think that someone can be more right about something than another person. Another example: "Peripheral types themselves do not seize power and are not able to retain it. If they find themselves at the top of formal structures (for example, the state machine), it is only as satellites or allies of the central types." Bullshit. There are a plenty of alpha and delta politicians at the top of formal structures.
Or: "The central ones have a tendency to use doping agents to spur the body when overloading occurs. We are talking not only about smoking and alcohol, but also about the use of any other substances that have tonic or hallucinogenic characteristics. For the central ones, periodic checks of their competitiveness are vital: training in extreme situations, long hikes and other attempts to find the limit, conquer the top, prove that I can, etc. The peripheral ones are born for a more relaxed life without shocks and the need for excessive stimulation."
Yeah right, I've seen peripheral types addicted to nicotine and caffeine and supposed central types sleeping when they need it. Plenty of druggies in both camps.
I guess it's something of a subjective matter, but I prefer using central/peripheral and ascending/descending than calling groups of quadras by the functions they value.
It seems like there are less layers of abstraction when a term is clearly defined and correlates with a concept. Using the functions themselves adds layers of abstraction and thusly makes it harder to grasp because it requires having a concept of each function in pairs, of why they work in those pairs (as in, why Ni works with Se rather than with Si) and what it means to 'value' those functions. Those are all concepts that you have to tie together and that remain very abstract. I like Gulenko's terminology here (WSS also uses terminology this way, though albeit with different terms denoting slightly different concepts) because it describes how the quadras behave in practice with a single term. It is easier to observe and confirm/infirm in practice because there are less conceptual hoops to have to jump through.
Yeah and you could also say merry/serious or decisive/judicious. Directly using Ni/Se vs Ne/Si and Fe/Ti vs Fi/Te doesn't require you to remember what a particular term means and immediately even defines that which function pairs are on the same axis.
Look on Sociotype.com and comparevaluing types. There, you will find descriptions like: INTjs are more inclined to believe there are relative truths than ISFjs. That is, this relativity is perceived by INTjs as an extenuation of the differing beliefs, opinions, intentions, etc. of each person.
Another significant example in this thread:Refraining from absolutism sets the groundwork for relativism. Essentially,/
valuers, too, have a certain tolerance for plurality in perspectives in that they are comfortable with brainstorming and ideas more based on "the object" or external sources. Therefore, from where I'm couched,
and
, seems to be the quadra most oriented towards absolutism.
I also like Gulenko's terminology because it's not only more conceptually efficient than the function pairs, it also points to something connected and consequential.
The burden of proof is on you to provide examples of politicians who valuevaluing types. Modern examples include Putin, Trump, Xi Jinping, and Obama.
Also, I can't speak for Alphas, but Model G seems to be a
I agree. But I see other commonalities about different IEs as well, it depends on the aspect of IE. Ne and Fi are common in one aspect that Ti and Ne arent.I'm couched,
Angela Merkel is typed as LII by G.The burden of proof is on you to provide examples of politicians who value
Can you expound?
Fi and Ne are more prone to notice and think in terms of inclinations, characteristics and qualities of people in the way it monitors things that cannot be changed in a person and makes such conclusions. Besides that both Te/Fi and Si/Ne axis are into convience imo.
There are no relative truths, there are different opinions. The physical reality has one state or another, whether it's easy or possible to determine is another matter. But anything that isn't objectively verifiable is an opinion.Look on Sociotype.com and compare
Another significant example in this thread: Refraining from absolutism sets the groundwork for relativism. Essentially,
I don't agree with coining a bunch of new terms or using those silly symbols when you can keep it simple but whatever. It's like trying to make it more arcane on purpose but a pig with make-up is still a pig.I also like Gulenko's terminology because it's not only more conceptually efficient than the function pairs, it also points to something connected and consequential.
The burden of proof is on you to provide examples of politicians who value
Empirical findings is the only thing I care about, sure consistent theories are pretty but they're simply theories until they prove to be useful in practice or are consistent with measurements.
There's a lot of alpha and delta politicians in the northern european countries or for example Canada (Trudeau). Being successful in politics in democratic countries is all about charming the voters one way or another.
My analysis in the chatbox from a few days ago:
Gulenko typing stats: ISTJ 12, ENFJ 10, INTP 5, INFP 4, ESTP 3, INTJ 2, ENFP 1, ENTP 1, ESFP 1 (Total Typed).
59% introverts 41% extroverts; 59% intuitive 41% sensing; 59% logical 41% ethical; 62% rational 38% irrational.
Based on dichotomies only, I'd expect his typings to be distributed as follows: INTJ 5, ENTJ 3, ISTJ 3, INFJ 3, INTP 3, ENFJ 2, ISFJ 2, ESTJ 2, ENTP 2, ISTP 2, INFP 2, ESFJ 2, ENFP 1, ISFP 1, ESTP 1, ESFP 1.
Thus arguably the most overtyped types (in order): ENFJ, ISTJ, ESTP, INFP, INTP.
Most undertyped (most to least): ENTJ, INFJ, INTJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ENTP, ISTP, ESFJ, ENFP, ISFP, ESFP.
From seeing Gulenko's typing process, I had thought he typed significantly via the four top level dichotomies (extroversion vs. introversion etc.) - which he probably does, but I certainly think he has a significant bias (cultural norms or whatever). Maybe most LIIs seem LSI when compared to him.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
