Mistyping Females as IEIs

[huiheiwufhawriuhg]

I have not been here for a long time and I honestly came back to say just one thing that has lately occured to me. I, just like many other females on this site, have been typed as an IEI by some members. It feels like there is something fundamentally wrong with this typing and it's quite easy to pin point it. It's a misogynist typing that arises by nothing but female stereotypes. If you're a preferably a good looking female, you're supposed to be soft, gentle, dreamy, physically weak. So, you have to be an IEI. Let me tell you, it's one of the worst if not the worst example of sexism in typology. Typing someone based on their gender and prejudicial assumptions is not only wrong, it's sexist and antediluvian. So, to all the females who have been forced an IEI typing on themselves by other members of this site, think about the fact that maybe, someone is just being a misogynist jerk to you. And to all the females who play their game, you have been manipulated by a game that is as old as the human kind itself.

The other problem of this site is, people often say: "You're not my dual", when they type you. Well, you're not supposed to be their dual, if that's what they're looking for. Typing someone based on how much yo feel romantically attracted to them is even worse than being a sexistic jerk.

That's all I really wanted to say.

[Rebelondeck]

I've met more male IEIs than female ones. I've noted that more than a few have difficulty typing themselves because they're so focused on conforming to some idealized image as if they don't like who and or where they are, and want to be someone else. I'm certain that one cannot accurately determine another individual's type via remote means; one could amuse oneself by guessing based on some questionable questioning but even the replies often lack objectivity, and two wrongs will never make a right. Some on this site seem to badmouth certain individuals and even whole types - name-calling like on the playground.

a.k.a. I/O

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Sorry but I can't tell if you are serious or trolling lol.

I actually got EII on here waaaay back when I first joined in 2007 and I wonder if I got IEI cuz other people equated being a gay guy with being feminine too much. But I mean even if I was straight- I don't think it makes much sense that a LSE dry businesswoman would my dual over the SLE cool chick/drug-addicted bad girl. I fell in love with a person who was very SLE-like even before I learned about socionics so I think the tests are often wrong/faulty.

[Lolita]

It’s a lot of misconceptions. IEI is probably the most common non-Se self-typing because people fetishize Ni like it’s being psychic, mystical, and mysterious. IEIs are actually rather normal and boring and would rather be viewed as normal. IEI is like the nerdy chick who tries to be good and get all As but secretly lusts after the SLE dumbass brute football player. I know that a lot of people are normal and boring, but it’s a tendency for most to gravitate towards types they believe to give them some sort of “special” flair.

I take issue with fake Se ppl because it’s the function I know most about. People gravitate towards Se because they believe they’re badasses (especially EIE). Then there’s real Se types who reject Se because they believe that Se means badass and they don’t think they’re badasses or assertive. It’s more sad to me when I do see people reject Se when they’re actually quite good at it. It all boils down to how one perceive oneself. How you perceive yourself may not be how you really are.

[Lolita]

Sorry but I can't tell if you are serious or trolling lol.

I actually got EII on here waaaay back when I first joined in 2007 and I wonder if I got IEI cuz other people equated being a gay guy with being feminine too much. But I mean even if I was straight- I don't think it makes much sense that a LSE dry businesswoman would my dual over the SLE cool chick/drug-addicted bad girl. I fell in love with a person who was very SLE-like even before I learned about socionics so I think the tests are often wrong/faulty.

You just wanna get your WAB (boogina) pounded by a muscled bound brute who don’t know nothing else but cash money hoes

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

IEIs are actually rather normal and boring and would rather be viewed as normal. IEI is like the nerdy chick who tries to be good and get all As but secretly lusts after the SLE dumbass brute football player. I know that a lot of people are normal and boring, but it’s a tendency for most to gravitate towards types they believe to give them some sort of “special” flair.

I take issue with fake Se ppl because it’s the function I know most about. People gravitate towards Se because they believe they’re badasses (especially EIE). Then there’s real Se types who reject Se because they believe that Se means badass and they don’t think they’re badasses or assertive. It’s more sad to me when I do see people reject Se when they’re actually quite good at it. It all boils down to how one perceive oneself. How you perceive yourself may not be how you really are.

lol I like you a lot for saying this thank you. I feel "seen." <3 It feels so refreshing and just cuts through so much of the mental misty jumbo on here that simply 'doesn't work.'

" IEI is like the nerdy chick who tries to be good and get all As but secretly lusts after the SLE dumbass brute football player. "

lol. Man, you totally know me...

[Djinn]

It’s a lot of misconceptions. IEI is probably the most common non-Se self-typing because people fetishize Ni like it’s being psychic, mystical, and mysterious. IEIs are actually rather normal and boring and would rather be viewed as normal. IEI is like the nerdy chick who tries to be good and get all As but secretly lusts after the SLE dumbass brute football player. I know that a lot of people are normal and boring, but it’s a tendency for most to gravitate towards types they believe to give them some sort of “special” flair.

I take issue with fake Se ppl because it’s the function I know most about. People gravitate towards Se because they believe they’re badasses (especially EIE). Then there’s real Se types who reject Se because they believe that Se means badass and they don’t think they’re badasses or assertive. It’s more sad to me when I do see people reject Se when they’re actually quite good at it. It all boils down to how one perceive oneself. How you perceive yourself may not be how you really are.

I had so much trouble accepting that I am an Ni type when I got into typology because I was trying to make sure I didn't have some unseen bias. I started in MBTI like most people and everybody there would assume you were mistyped if you claimed to be Ni dom. Those who didn't assume you were mistyped were usually mistyped Ni doms themselves. Shit, I STILL feel like I'm lying to myself about being an Ni dom sometimes!

Oh, and I have wanted to ask what that gif below all your posts is from. So... where is it from?

[necrosebud]

I prefer to use my own judgment when it comes to ascertaining psychology - I no longer trust most other’s ability on it. Ofc, it has always been the case it’s just realized I had been insightful and correct all along in my insights (not all of them obvi) but people can be awfully predictable, stereotypical uncreative and generally not worth arguing with, basically similar to what you said in your post. That’s been my experience with forums anyway

[marooned]

*stares at DarkAngelFireWolf69*

[SGF]

lol I like you a lot for saying this thank you. I feel "seen." <3 It feels so refreshing and just cuts through so much of the mental misty jumbo on here that simply 'doesn't work.'

" IEI is like the nerdy chick who tries to be good and get all As but secretly lusts after the SLE dumbass brute football player. "

lol. Man, you totally know me...

Choose yer dual..
I found a pic of all STs, behold:

Chad - SLE
Chet - LSE
Kyle - LSI
Tanner - SLI

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

LMAO.

I like Chad the best. Then Tanner. Then Chet. Kyle is definitely friendzoned. Sorry Kyle.

Actually something is really appealing to me about a Tanner - feels a lot like my Activity partner in ways. Maybe he is actually first. Chad/Tanner are pretty close I guess lol.

[lynn]

Choose yer dual..
I found a pic of all STs, behold:

Chad - SLE
Chet - LSE
Kyle - LSI
Tanner - SLI

Chet seems more LIE, though. Being supervised by Tanner.

[Adam Strange]

Choose yer dual..
I found a pic of all STs, behold:

Chad - SLE
Chet - LSE
Kyle - LSI
Tanner - SLI

My impression:
Chad - SEE
Chet - LIE
Tanner - LSI/SLI
Kyle - SEI

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

"The Idea of Chad" is very stereotypical SLE but that specific Chad actually might be a Delta ST Chad. I don't know, I think delta ST eyes are often narrow-er like that. He even looks like he could be LSE-Si to me. It's so generically Delta masculine-like that I'm honestly not even that into him lol.

Tanner: Definitely LSI to me. Not SLI. Can feel the Ij aura just radiate off of him.

Kyle: ESE. He looks really sensitive and prone to criticisms from Ni-doms.

Chet: LIE. What a victimy lil bitch that pwns people with his worldly Te.

[gone]

I was mistyped as IEI by the patriarchy

[Lolita]

Oh, and I have wanted to ask what that gif below all your posts is from. So... where is it from?

Faye Valentine from Cowboy Bebop. She's SEE-C. I used to have a gif of Spike. He's my identical, SEE-N.

[Lolita]

Chad is SLE.
Chet is pussy LIE but very business savvy.
Kyle and Tanner both LSIs, just different subtypes.
Kyle is LSI-C
Tanner is LSI-N/H

I was with an LSI-N named Kyle. He's over 6ft tall, really fit but slim, super introverted, skateboarder. He's the youngest of 7 kids.

[The Reality Denialist]

I was mistyped as IEI by the patriarchy

Hmmm... at least international committee of eunuchs didn't consider ILI for you.

[gone]

Hmmm... at least international committee of eunuchs didn't consider ILI for you.

They did actually

[Adam Strange]

They did actually

Did you tell them to fuck off?

If you had, that would only have reinforced their opinion of ILI for you.* But you should have, anyway.



*I could totally see @Capitalist Pig saying that. Assuming he deigned to reply to them at all.

[squark]

It all boils down to how one perceive oneself. How you perceive yourself may not be how you really are.

Yeah, this is something that I sometimes wonder about - am I seeing myself accurately? I try to step outside myself and check from time to time, try to make sure I'm not lying to myself.

[Lolita]

Yeah, this is something that I sometimes wonder about - am I seeing myself accurately? I try to step outside myself and check from time to time, try to make sure I'm not lying to myself.

I say this all the time. I think it’s impossible to totally step outside of the self to analyze objectively. You (in general, not you specifically) could do it in some cases but it’s limited and short-lived. Self-preservation will always kick in and people will fight things about themselves, despite others telling them otherwise. Now, the thing is, just because some people tell you things they’ve observed about you, doesn’t mean they’re right either, because you’d have to question their motives for telling you what they did (are they trying to gaslight you or they’re actually caring about you to help you improve?). But at the same time, if you’re getting feedback from people you trust or those whom you’ve judged to be truthful, and they tell you things about yourself that you have a hard time accepting, you’d have to ask yourself why you don’t want to accept that something.

That’s why there’s people who are Se leads and they reject Se because they don’t want to associate themselves as something they think is so forceful, not realizing that they themselves are actually forceful people, too. I just talked with another SEE, but she’s H subtype (emphasis on Si and Ni) and she doesn’t feel like she could be “forceful,” not realizing that she heavily relies upon Se to gather information in order to form a judgment (Fi). Very lovely person. She’s in real estate. I already knew her type before she told me in the end. But she doesn’t view herself as someone assertive and thinks she cares about how others feel (she wonders if she’s ESE) more than she actually does. I already sorted out her motivations that she doesn’t want to disrupt the harmony because of sales, not because she actually cares maintaining any sort of atmospheric emotion. She takes up her clients’ concerns as her own (Fi) to get them what they want so they’ll pay her what she wants. She’s very realistic and she even told me I’m 100% right in my assessment.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

If a person I know has a history of gaslight/trolling others or abusing people to make themselves feel mentally superior I easily brush off what they say about me. If I don't know them well and they analyze me- I figure it's cuz they don't know me and don't really listen to that either. If we haven't had too bad of a history and it seems more neutral and not love bombing but not sadism/hatred either I take the feedback into consideration much more because because it seems more truly fair and objective. I also will respect it better if I am the one that approached them first and ask them to psychoanalyze me, not just some creep-o Hannibal that does it anyway without my consent.

I also take envy into account because many people when they are jealous of something you have that they don't have - they need to tear you down. If you are powerful they often like telling you how unimportant they think you are- as they are sooo jealous of your own power. If I don't really sense there is any envy objectively - it also seems more 'sound' to me.

Not that I think people are jealous of me very often or anything that's really conceited and dumb lol but when it does happen my Ni notices it.

[Capitalist Pig]

Did you tell them to fuck off?

If you had, that would only have reinforced their opinion of ILI for you.* But you should have, anyway.



*I could totally see @Capitalist Pig saying that. Assuming he deigned to reply to them at all.

Hi

[Adam Strange]

Hi

Hi, CP. How's life?

[Capitalist Pig]

Hi, CP. How's life?

Worth living, I guess

[Aramas]

Choose yer dual..
I found a pic of all STs, behold:

Chad - SLE
Chet - LSE
Kyle - LSI
Tanner - SLI

Just based on the pictures, I'd have to say:

Chad - LIE
Chet - SEE
Kyle - LSI
Tanner - LSI or LII

There are Chads that are SLE though. LIE and EIE can both be Chad types. You have to be "cool" to get with the LIEs, and EIE Chads tend to be really vain, so you have to stroke their egos.

LSE Chads are not really Chads lol. They would be nice guy caring Chads if anything. Big muscles but nice and don't care about popularity even though they have it. More like Disney Chad.

[spaceynyc]

Chet is LIE

Kyle is SEE

the other two are I agree are SLE and SLI

[Alomoes]

It's a big meme. Just do as I do, and do it yourself. It's not that hard.

[Sol]

@Fay
What is your type relates to other section. That it's IEI is clear. Your emotional nonsense (F) with expressed imagination (N) here fits to IEI good too.

> I have not been here for a long time and I honestly came back to say just one thing that has lately occured to me

You got IEI about your type not lately, but years ago. What was "lately" is that you agreed with your IEI type in last monthes.

> I, just like many other females on this site, have been typed as an IEI by some members.

You agreed with this type too in recent monthes. IEI seems was several times in your profile. Other types in your profile I remember were EII and ESI. EII is close.
Also tests should gave you IEI and close types many or most times - tests which decide by _your_ selfperception.

> It's a misogynist typing that arises by nothing but female stereotypes.

A typing is done by your _actual behavior_ but not assumptions based on your sex. You get some type when your behavior fits to this type more than to all other types in good degree.
To disagree with assurance with IEI as your type you need logical arguments that your _behavior_ fits to some other type _better_. But not just dislike IEI types and geting of it.

Also there is more of a sympathy than of a hate in the situation to get by a woman a type which is supposed as fiting good to common ideals of a feminity.

From the point of possible distortions linked with sex to influence on a typing - the only known trait which women may get some more often (like 60%) is _feeling types_, as tests say it more often for women, while most men get T types. Why it's so may have different reasons, including that there is more of F women indeed. It's known that brains of men and women have differences and hence we think differently, that may touch Jung types traits and related behavior too. Plus cultural influence. Hypothetically there can exist an additional factor which adds women (but reduces at men) higher emotionality and higher motivation in emotions, besides Jung types. This may give additional _generally_ higher emotionality and emotional motivation in the consciousness what means higher chance to have F type for women. Or only more of _some_ behavior related to F types, while informational balance in the consciousness (Jung type) is not changed. For 2nd possibility as example mb pointed ADHD disorder which makes more expressed in a behavior some traits of P types (lesser stable behavior), and J types should may have this disorder too. In such case it's not a principle problem to have additional behavior distortion - with more info and better typing skills it can be solved.

Same as some people may unreasonably dislike something in own body, they may do this with psyche traits as related to own type. Redundant negative emotions is neurotic symptom. When you have inner conflict - you dislike yourself in something. When you do not like to process the conflict as should, hide it to unconsciousness, - the negative emotions energy may be transfered to your perception of other things in you or in external. Probably something painful happened recently in your life and you are upset by yourself because of this, what predisposed to another round of rejecting of own Jung type.