Figure out my type...if you can >:P

[Adam Strange]

Yeah, but the point I'm making is that, theoretically speaking...with E8, people might see that they can't get away with option 3, thus resort to 2 more. With others besides the 8, that same person might usually use 3, but because of the 8's nature, resort to 2. That is what I wonder.

The alternative theory is that, perhaps, the tendency to appear to be more threatening might result in others having a more frequent provocation to respond to the perceived threat.

Of course, it could be that neither are valid, but it would also make sense if they were.

My approach to differences of opinion is to listen to the other person and try to hear what they are saying, while examining my own beliefs in light of their wants or assertions, because I'm coming from a fairly bad childhood and I've discovered that I'm wrong a lot. Really wrong. However, I don't always do listen as well as I probably should.

Mostly, I try to stay just a hair over their aggression level, and to escalate only when they do. Game theory says that the best outcomes happen when you start out playing fair, then return the kind of behavior that you get from the other person, AT THE SAME LEVEL OF AGGRESSION AS THEY PRESENTED. Not more, not less.

And I try really hard to do win-wins, but with some people, that just doesn't work, and then you have to ask yourself how you can get them to do what you want.

I've been in a few physical fights in my life, and I haven't won them all. In one of them, there was so much violence that my shoes filled with blood. Believe it or not, I'd call that one a draw. So I really don't like to get into fights, because I've had stitches in my face twice, and the scars don't improve my looks. Basically, I try to be a good judge of power and I don't like to make enemies.

I think it's far better to be nice. I really do. But when I want something, I try to get it, and I try to ensure that the other person wins by giving it to me.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

My approach to differences of opinion is to listen to the other person and try to hear what they are saying, while examining my own beliefs in light of their wants or assertions. I don't always do this as well as I'd like, though.

Mostly, I try to stay just a hair over their aggression level, and to escalate only when they do. Game theory says that the best outcomes happen when you start out playing fair, then return the kind of behavior that you get from the other person, AT THE SAME LEVEL OF AGGRESSION AS THEY PRESENTED. Not more, not less.

And I try really hard to do win-wins, but with some people, that just doesn't work, and then you have to ask yourself how you can get them to do what you want.

I've been in a few physical fights in my life, and I haven't won them all. In one of them, there was so much violence that my shoes filled with blood. Believe it or not, I'd call that one a draw. So I really don't like to get into fights, because I've had stitches in my face twice, and the scars don't improve my looks. Basically, I try to be a good judge of power and I don't like to make enemies.

I think it's far better to be nice. I really do. But when I want something, I try to get it, and I try to ensure that the other person wins by giving it to me.

I was talking about unhealthy levels of 8 with all of that. I was not in a healthy place back then (and what kid would be, in those shoes?)

Personally, my issue is more or less that people see me as more threatening than I really am, therefore things don't come into the light enough for me to seek understanding. Outside of that, I do seek understanding, and I don't like making enemies either.

Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you. Not sure why you think I am. I'm always saying similar things.
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1490751

I'm simply saying you have to be realistic and know when to be which way. Having that discernment, that judgment, is having the next level of wisdom beyond understanding that softness is just one type of strength.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

[Adam Strange]

I was talking about unhealthy levels of 8 with all of that. I was not in a healthy place back then.

Personally, my issue is more or less that people see me as more threatening than I really am, therefore things don't come into the light enough for me to seek understanding. Outside of that, I do seek understanding, and I don't like making enemies either.

Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with you. Not sure why you think I am. I'm always saying similar things.
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...=1#post1490751

Sorry, @Lady Lunacik. I guess I got the impression that you were saying that e8s escalated to nuclear war at the slightest provocation, and that's not at all what I do.

I always try to be nice. And I don't mean fake-nice. I mean, "I see you're having a problem and maybe we can resolve it so that you're doing much better." And I, incidentally, will also do much better when they aren't coming from a place of fear.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Sorry, @Lady Lunacik. I guess I got the impression that you were saying that e8s escalated to nuclear war at the slightest provocation, and that's not at all what I do.

Holy shit, no. Lol, not what I meant at all.

I always try to be nice. And I don't mean fake-nice. I mean, "I see you're having a problem and maybe we can resolve it so that you're doing much better." And I, incidentally, will also do much better when they aren't coming from a place of fear.

Same, minus the fear part. I'm understanding with fear...and basically everything that is not just ill intentions. That is where I draw the line. I have no tolerance for malicious people.

Btw, I'm much softer outside of the forums, also...well, or, actually, around people I know intimately in general, I'm very warm/soft/gentle. I have a bit of duality to me...lioness/kitten.

[WVBRY]

@Lady Leviathan, I guess I will be more on-topic here to give my impressions on your type. You're right that I don't know you, but I think that is relatively unimportant when typing someone, in my opinion.

I'll write something up later, I'm mulitasking now and don't want my focus to go in yet another direction.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

@Lady Leviathan, I guess I will be more on-topic here to give my impressions on your type. You're right that I don't know you, but I think that is relatively unimportant when typing someone, in my opinion.

I'll write something up later, I'm mulitasking now and don't want my focus to go in yet another direction.

That's fine, and I see @Rune changed his mind again also, as he was last typing me as ESI but is now liking all of your posts.

I'll try to keep an open mind, but I'm a complex / kind of "out of the box" person and I expect there to be a bunch of misunderstandings about my actions. "You do X bc of this reason," when really I'm doing Y because of something else, and it just "comes off" that way because when "most people" do X, it means whatever reason you said. IDK, 99% of the time when people who don't actually know me try to evaluate me somehow, this is what it is. The other % of the time - in the typology community only, obviously - it's that people use weird points because they don't prioritize information well.

Again, I'll try to keep an open mind, and I will listen. It'll be hard to convince me, though. I've gone through a lot of types and rejected Socionics for a lack of fits until ESI clicked. I've been in the typology community for long enough to have probably already tried on and ruled out whatever you will suggest.

That said, I'd offer the weak points of my case for ESI to make it easier for you to build a case for something, but I'm not even sure what there is anymore. My only advice is to prioritize information and use main, core Socionics points, not extraneous "most ESIs will do x behavior" things.

FWIW, btw, I do think it matters a lot whether you know someone or not. If for no other reason, then because of what I said above: I'm very easily misunderstood. I don't try/want/need/pride myself in being different, I just simply am, and I didn't even know that I was until others told me after getting to know me, much less attempt to be such. (In other words, I'm also not a goddamn 4.)

[ILoveChinchillas]

Yeah sorry about the wishy-washiness. I really couldn't help myself because something felt off. Anyway, I'll let Hardware Punk state his case because it's his to make and also I think he's better at typing people than I am. Could give you a better explanation because he's LSI and I'm not.

EDIT: Also, sorry for bringing up type in the other thread. That thread wasn't meant for type discussion and I probably came off as critical in my type assessment because that was the entire premise of the thread.

[WVBRY]

That's fine, and I see @Rune changed his mind again also, as he was last typing me as ESI but is now liking all of your posts.

I'll try to keep an open mind, but I'm a complex / kind of "out of the box" person and I expect there to be a bunch of misunderstandings about my actions. "You do X bc of this reason," when really I'm doing Y because of something else, and it just "comes off" that way because when "most people" do X, it means whatever reason you said. IDK, 99% of the time when people who don't actually know me try to evaluate me somehow, this is what it is. The other % of the time - in the typology community only, obviously - it's that people use weird points because they don't prioritize information well.

Again, I'll try to keep an open mind, and I will listen. It'll be hard to convince me, though. I've gone through a lot of types and rejected Socionics for a lack of fits until ESI clicked. I've been in the typology community for long enough to have probably already tried on and ruled out whatever you will suggest.

That said, I'd offer the weak points of my case for ESI to make it easier for you to build a case for something, but I'm not even sure what there is anymore. My only advice is to prioritize information and use main, core Socionics points, not extraneous "most ESIs will do x behavior" things.

No, I understand. I mean my response to you in the random thought thread was perhaps more relevant to Adam than to you since he seems to use socionics for dating purposes, whereas (though I could be mistaken) you are more laid back when it comes to that aspect of things. I found the idea that duality between LIE-ESI to be difficult a bit strange, because given that it's either a fairly binary choice of you are mistyped or the theory is right but also wrong (ie duality is easy and smooth but also difficult - wtf a contradiction of there ever was one), I'll go with the former - though of course it's also possible there is nothing to this theory (though in my experience, there is, so it's hard for me to reason this way). So I pounced on what you said there a bit rashly and it probably wasn't constructive. Also, just so we're on the same page, I know you and Adam aeren't dating, though I realize the way I said that could cause confusion, which wasn't my intent.

Tbh I don't have a strong case for your type. I would have said LSI, but I think my reasons aeren't very solid, for example relating to your cogntive and emotional process (based on how you write, though like you said I don't know you). Another argument (and this connects to the first) is that you seem to break things down in a nuanced manner that I can only see Ti leads do, your posts are very clear, and written in a way that is intelligible and comprehensible The interesting part is that I myself have been told this but never realized there was anything special about it. I just thought everyone did that. But then again, perhaps you are arguing from a different take on socionics, I really like the SHS take on it, but it may not be for you, I get that in Westernized, WSS-ish interpretations of this theory, Fe/Ti vs Te/Fi valuing is a bit different than in SHS. Also typing by quadra values is problematic imo because in this society, almost everyone adopts gamma values whether they are actually from the quadra or not, which can give some gamma-ish betas.

I actually don't know what your reasons are though for typing yourself as ESI - I'll keep an open mind too as to your reasons because I have no idea what they are. I will try and read through this thread though, hopefully there is something I can find. I actually suspect your reasons for typing as ESI are valid from the pov of model A, but perhaps not model G, but I won't say more.

And as far as Rune is concerned, I don't know exactly what he thinks of your type, you'll have to ask him about that. I do recall he made some decent arguments for you being an LSI in another thread.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

While it's on my mind, one of the main reasons I switched from typing as Logical to Ethical was that I noticed I had some sort of relationship-oriented lean that none of the other Logical types seemed to have. I prioritized my relationships above all, I became deeply upset and volatile when something went wrong with my relationships, I was more attuned to people distancing from me than most people are, my contributions to conversations always had a human slant even when the conversation was unrelated, I was very people-centric in my studies (all of my self-improvement stuff was like...how to communicate to different people better, how to understand people better, what types of comforting works at different times and with different people, and so on). It's so much a part of me that it's like breathing, I can't stop. I literally wouldn't know how. I am lost when it comes to systems, stocks, or other things that aren't relationship-centric. I really come to life when someone comes to me with a relationship issue, though.

[WVBRY]

Aren't you mostly just venting regarding your relationship with the LIE? I would be skeptical that we have a balanced picture of the relationship online. @Lady Leviathan

That's fair.

I mean, like I said, my comment was more of an attempt to help Adam in a way, because I see his method is failing him and it hurts to see. Him saying things like "this duality is hard" or "I can't dualize with ESI because my Fi is too weak" aeren't convincing me either, though this thread is not about Adam, so I digress. (On a side note, we also don't have a balanced view of Adam's relationships, either, but since he keeps saying he is failing in trying to date ESIs, and is so consistent in saying this, I wonder if changing his method would help him)

[ILoveChinchillas]

@Rune: do you believe Fi creative is in the realm of possibility for me based on what you experienced with me? I have had a couple people online suggest that within the past week so it's gotten me kind of curious.

No. Fuck no.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Aren't you mostly just venting regarding your relationship with the LIE? I would be skeptical that we have a balanced picture of the relationship online. @Lady Leviathan

I am, yes. I don't vent much in general anymore, but notice how when I do, it's always about people/relationships. That's what I mean about being relationship oriented to a point of not knowing how to NOT be. It's basically all that comes out of my mouth, all that's on my mind 99% of the day, etc. That was what made me go...OK, maaaaybe something is off here...then I realized Socionics allows room for ESI to be logical, too, and I was like OK this makes way more sense for me *trashes other systems because they don't*.

I do, however, align what I say is LIE with my knowledge about Socionics systems...so when I say LIE, it's because I know what I'm dealing with matches LIE descriptions.

[ILoveChinchillas]

Also, what does that have to do with Lady Leviathian's type? Attention whore, much?

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

No. Fuck no.

LOL that reaction.

[ILoveChinchillas]

The other ILI said something similar. "Oh God no" were his exact words to me. Hahahaha

Don't worry. The LSIs exist and there is one (or multiple) for you.
@Diametric I saw that comment, and I agree with him. You do have your moments of spontaneity and authenticity but yeah just no. Sorry if that comes across as an insult.

[WVBRY]

While it's on my mind, one of the main reasons I switched from typing as Logical to Ethical was that I noticed I had some sort of relationship-oriented lean that none of the other Logical types seemed to have. I prioritized my relationships above all, I became deeply upset and volatile when something went wrong with my relationships, I was more attuned to people distancing from me than most people are, my contributions to conversations always had a human slant even when the conversation was unrelated, I was very people-centric in my studies (all of my self-improvement stuff was like...how to communicate to different people better, how to understand people better, what types of comforting works at different times and with different people, and so on). It's so much a part of me that it's like breathing, I can't stop. I literally wouldn't know how. I am lost when it comes to systems, stocks, or other things that aren't relationship-centric. I really come to life when someone comes to me with a relationship issue, though.

I'll be honest with you, I don't feel competent to type people on a reliable basis, especially in a case like yours where it is perhaps less obvious to me and alot of info is missing (for instance, nonverbal cues). Even with the info though, I don't feel like I am a good typist at this point - I want to take courses with Gulenko to learn diagnostics and I know a new beginner class is starting late May, but I will not be free for it, unfortunately. So even though @Rune seems to hold my diagnostic skills in high esteem (which is flattering), I don't feel I'm competent at it. Sometimes I see a person's type and sometimes I don't, and even those times when I do see it I don't consider that I have a strong opinion except in rare cases.

[ILoveChinchillas]

It had nothing to do with it. I got it confused with the "Random Thoughts thread ooops, my bad. My e3ness got the best of me.

I wondered if that was the case. Sorry for calling you an attention whore.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

It had nothing to do with it. I got it confused with the "Random Thoughts thread ooops, my bad. My e3ness got the best of me.

Tbh I really didn't mind anyway, don't worry.

[ILoveChinchillas]

I know it's not an insult at all from either of you guys... It is just the truth.

Te ftw. Kind of funny how people can be so similar. I'll pass on the dumb tattoos, though.

If I was Dr. Strange, the evil version of me would have dumb tattoos.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

I'll be honest with you, I don't feel competent to type people on a reliable basis, especially in a case like yours where it is perhaps less obvious to me and alot of info is missing (for instance, nonverbal cues). Even with the info though, I don't feel like I am a good typist at this point - I want to take courses with Gulenko to learn diagnostics and I know a new beginner class is starting late May, but I will not be free for it, unfortunately. So even though @Rune seems to hold my diagnostic skills in high esteem (which is flattering), I don't feel I'm competent at it. Sometimes I see a person's type and sometimes I don't, and even those times when I do see it I don't consider that I have a strong opinion except in rare cases.

No worries. A class sounds fun, if it was free I'd take it just to see what they have to say. Let us know how it goes

As for nonverbal, if it helps any, on the outside I'm deceptively calm, unexpressive, and chill. People iRL think I'm chill as fuck, people online think I'm explosive when I actually wasn't even that upset (usually was just being blunt as fuck while having a nonchalant "I don't care" face and speaking calmly/softly).


There's a really big discrepancy between my RL presence and my inner-world. Online I seem intense, offline I seem low-key. Online my fire shows, offline it doesn't much. Underestimated underdog. The list goes on. I see that as Fi/Se. What I feel lurks more beneath the surface.

[ILoveChinchillas]

@Lady Leviathan my question is: is your ethical focus there for some other reason than type? I used to type as an ethical type because I had a lot of ups and downs. Turns out, I have a mood disorder; plus I'm an irrational type so my emotions tend to fall in line with changing perceptions throughout the day. I also tend to focus a lot on people even though I'm a logical type. In fact, I'd say the majority of my thoughts tend to focus on other people. Part if it is anxiety, but there's also a passion I have for learning about classifications of people and archetypes etc.

From where I'm standing, I agree with @Hardware Punk in that you both look like 4D Ti types. You're very concise and to be honest I admire your writing ability, which takes proficiency in logic to accomplish. You scored poorly on logic but you know things can change and maybe you're not giving yourself enough credit.

FFT.

[WVBRY]

No worries. A class sounds fun, if it was free I'd take it just to see what they have to say. Let us know how it goes

As for nonverbal, if it helps any, on the outside I'm deceptively calm, unexpressive, and chill. People iRL think I'm chill as fuck, people online think I'm explosive when I actually wasn't even that upset (usually was just being blunt as fuck while having a nonchalant "I don't care" face and speaking calmly/softly).


There's a really big discrepancy between my RL presence and my inner-world. Online I seem intense, offline I seem low-key. Online my fire shows, offline it doesn't much. Underestimated underdog. The list goes on. I see that as Fi/Se. What I feel lurks more beneath the surface.

Dispassionate expression is a sign of L as a function in SHS. In SHS, hiding your true attitudes/opinions would be more indicative of R per se. In Model A socionics though, ESIs are described as "cold" and "dispassionate" but in SHS this is would apply more to L lead types. I'm getting this from a Discord post on a server where a student of SHS where the comparison between ESI and LSI was made. I'll let you know about the classes, sure.

Also Rune's question is valid I think because I also am people-oriented in my interests (always been interested in humanities, focused on the people in my life and they are important to me, though isn't the latter part just human, lol?).

But I mean, I don't really want you to feel you need to "defend" your self-typing here. For me, the evidence seems to point more to LSI than to ESI, but there could be valid reasons why we disagree.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

@Lady Leviathan my question is: is your ethical focus there for some other reason than type? I used to type as an ethical type because I had a lot of ups and downs. Turns out, I have a mood disorder; plus I'm an irrational type so my emotions tend to fall in line with changing perceptions throughout the day. I also tend to focus a lot on people even though I'm a logical type. In fact, I'd say the majority of my thoughts tend to focus on other people. Part if it is anxiety, but there's also a passion I have for learning about classifications of people and archetypes etc.

From where I'm standing, I agree with @Hardware Punk in that you both look like 4D Ti types. You're very concise and to be honest I admire your writing ability, which takes proficiency in logic to accomplish. You scored poorly on logic but you know things can change and maybe you're not giving yourself enough credit.

FFT.

Wow. Surprised to get this feedback. My bf swears I'm unclear and argues when I attribute that to us having difficulties with communication because of how different we think.
My IQ is appx 150, if that makes any difference? My "low" logic score was still a higher score than average, therefore. That is why I have wondered if I'm just smart. IQ's relation to Socionics Dimensionality is not well thought out or theorized, even, much less proven. Not trying to sound arrogant, these are just...my thoughts based on factual scores, etc. Intelligence isn't something I value aside from its usefulness, even...I wouldn't boast about that. It's not what makes people great. I look at peoples' character above all else, I think character is what makes people valuable. Things society esteems: material wealth, beauty, intelligence, all those status things...all overrated as fuck IMO. I hate when people care about that shit and I see it as unwise. That's not the person I am. Everyone is beautiful in their own way.

I don't like categorizing/classifying people much. That is too...IDK how else to describe it besides grouping things together too much. I prefer to focus on peoples' individuality, differences; and with respect for those differences, seeing how they all contribute to a greater whole in a way that is really under-appreciated by societies. People treat those who are different harshly when they should be appreciating them for their own personal unique strengths they bring to the table. People make a huge deal over stupid things though, such as skin color. Like who cares? It's fucking skin. You realize people are out there dying in war, famine, and under oppressive leadership, right? There are enough important things for us to be occupied with, why the fuck are we obsessing over the color of someone's skin? Christ.

Anyway, ADHD rambling aside, Perhaps someone could explain to me what the deal with LSI's "rules" they follow are? I've never understood what that meant, even. I can't exactly rule something out or deny it if I don't understand it, so maybe there is something there. Trying to keep an open mind.

[WVBRY]

Wow. Surprised to get this feedback. My bf swears I'm unclear and argues when I attribute that to us having difficulties with communication because of how different we think.
My IQ is appx 150, if that makes any difference? My "low" logic score was still a higher score than average, therefore. That is why I have wondered if I'm just smart. IQ's relation to Socionics Dimensionality is not well thought out or theorized, even, much less proven. Not trying to sound arrogant, these are just...my thoughts based on factual scores, etc. Intelligence isn't something I value aside from its usefulness, even...I wouldn't boast about that. It's not what makes people great. I look at peoples' character above all else, I think character is what makes people valuable. Things society esteems: material wealth, beauty, intelligence, all those status things...all overrated as fuck IMO. I hate when people care about that shit and I see it as unwise. That's not the person I am. Everyone is beautiful in their own way.

I don't like categorizing/classifying people much. That is too...IDK how else to describe it besides grouping things together too much. I prefer to focus on peoples' individuality, differences; and with respect for those differences, seeing how they all contribute to a greater whole in a way that is really under-appreciated by societies. People treat those who are different harshly when they should be appreciating them for their own personal unique strengths they bring to the table. People make a huge deal over stupid things though, such as skin color. Like who cares? It's fucking skin. You realize people are out there dying in war, famine, and under oppressive leadership, right? There are enough important things for us to be occupied with, why the fuck are we obsessing over the color of someone's skin? Christ.

Anyway, ADHD rambling aside, Perhaps someone could explain to me what the deal with LSI's "rules" they follow are? I've never understood what that meant, even. I can't exactly rule something out or deny it if I don't understand it, so maybe there is something there. Trying to keep an open mind.

I don't follow rules most of the time, and don't like having them imposed on me. I don't think LSIs follow "rules" if they feel those rules are unnecessary or unjust, that would go against their Ti. I've seen some unealthier LSIs try to get others to follow their rules, though, in order to better control them, but not necessarily follow those rules themselves - which is a sign that someone is adopting a predatory modus operandi, imo. (I have alot to say about predatory capitalism, and it shapes people in the workplace to become predatory themselves, but that's off-topic). Anyone who needs a set of rules to live their life does not have my respect. But I get that you need some rules, civil laws for example, so that authority does does not become arbitrary. You also need separation of powers, in my opinion, not just rules.

I think I understand and apprehend systems well, like IT networks and servers, especially if it's something I can apply. But my thought process is associative, and my method of work is not always structured.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Do you think your dispassionate expression and "chillness" is an exaggerated side effect from years of trauma? It seems like people are behaviorally conditioned to internalize (muted affect, stoic expression, minimalization of problems or emotions, intellectualization) or externalize (acting out, emotional outbursts, attention-seeking), depending on what strategy is best for coping/survival.

I could potentially see one of your main coping strategies as "intellectualization/rationalization" which often correlates to a logic preference.

Not that trauma explains all the discrepancies or changes a person's core personality (barring brain trauma), but it sure has hell can affect someone's overall presentation and outward self-expression.

Absolutely, yes. It strengthened my logic as well. My dad was extremely logic-centric, minimized and invalidated emotions constantly. I never sought his approval, but my circumstances left me with a void and a deep craving to be loved (no one really showed my brother and I that as a kid), which he took advantage of. I was brainwashed and thought he was the only one that actually loved me, same way my dad makes my brother think that still. Eg: being the only one there in times of need and ACTING sincere - but a whole different side comes out if you are not under his control. I did not know what love was and thought what my dad gave was it, so I grew closer. I did not do things for a need for approval, I did things because he convinced me that those were the right ways to be. I thought he was my best and only friend when I was younger (teens / early 20s) because he controlled and manipulated me into thinking the rest of the world was against me and untrustworthy besides him. I invalidated my own feelings, shut them down, minimized them, etc. until I learned that was unhealthy, then I broke free from those things with a big "fuck you" to him and anyone else who tries to do that to me, lol. Logic was a survival tool for me as a kid, though. It was a protective big brother. Using it and shutting my feelings down was the way to avoid literally hours and hours of abuse on a daily basis, to the point of it interfering with jobs, school, grades, getting me fired for being late, etc. Feelings were taboo.



I also might be exaggerating my own unexpressiveness. There's not 0, but it's definitely toned down.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

God, so many "lashings" from "making no logical sense," etc when I was younger. Yes, that influenced how I present myself, but also how I think. I basically got ran through military bootcamp for logic, with abuse as the consequence for falling short.

Stuff like this is also why I believe that it's important to know someone when typing them. Things like this can make some people complex.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

As for duality, btw...I can't see EIE as my dual. "Fe Ignoring" is very me. So, I'd still be arguing that Socionics duality was broken either way I was typed, lmao. Only, if I typed as LSI, I'd also be arguing that quadras, Information Metabolism Elements, and other stuff is broken in addition...and then drop Socionics as a faulty dumb system just like I did when I considered LSI as a possible typing for myself in the past.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

I don't follow rules most of the time, and don't like having them imposed on me. I don't think LSIs follow "rules" if they feel those rules are unnecessary or unjust, that would go against their Ti. I've seen some unealthier LSIs try to get others to follow their rules, though, in order to better control them, but not necessarily follow those rules themselves - which is a sign that someone is adopting a predatory modus operandi, imo. (I have alot to say about predatory capitalism, and it shapes people in the workplace to become predatory themselves, but that's off-topic). Anyone who needs a set of rules to live their life does not have my respect. But I get that you need some rules, civil laws for example, so that authority does does not become arbitrary. You also need separation of powers, in my opinion, not just rules.

I think I understand and apprehend systems well, like IT networks and servers, especially if it's something I can apply. But my thought process is associative, and my method of work is not always structured.

This is the kind of shit I mean, my mind does not think this way. I'm much more individualistic than that and I think more about my own personal relationships than groups/the structure of systems (as you did with the authority stuff)/etc.

I agree about the predatory shit, though. My dad was that way. (He is SLE. I rejected Fi in general, not just in me only, for years because of his teachings.)

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

@Lady Leviathan my question is: is your ethical focus there for some other reason than type? I used to type as an ethical type because I had a lot of ups and downs. Turns out, I have a mood disorder; plus I'm an irrational type so my emotions tend to fall in line with changing perceptions throughout the day. I also tend to focus a lot on people even though I'm a logical type. In fact, I'd say the majority of my thoughts tend to focus on other people. Part if it is anxiety, but there's also a passion I have for learning about classifications of people and archetypes etc.

FFT.

ALSO, forgot to respond to this part. I used to type as a Logic type still before being treated for bipolar. Emotions =/= Ethics. I will downright drop shows for the unethical characters, though. I dropped Vikings and my bf laughs at me because any time he mentions Ragnar the smile disappears from my face and I get all "grrrrrr." I hate him because he is morally reprehensible imo after doing certain things in the show. I thought almost all of the characters were shit ethically, to the point where I disliked the show because I felt like I was watching a bunch of assholes. The characters I liked didn't get enough screen time to hold my interest. There was no one to "root for" in the show because I didn't care enough about the main characters. Most were not terrible, but Ragnar...Ragnar is a complete piece of shit IMO. IDK how I was supposed to be into the show with him as the main character. I hated him.

Show spoiler:

Mostly, his attitude after cheating. Entitled. Like just, "so what?" He did not show guilt, nor care for the way his family was affected. He was selfish and only cared for himself, his desires. He had ONE miscarriage, ONE, then got eyes for someone else so he could have more sons. His guilt/regret in the show was over what he lost, not what his family felt. Just pure selfishness.

So no, I type as Ethical for Ethical reasons.

What is FFT?

[ILoveChinchillas]

ALSO, forgot to respond to this part. I used to type as a Logic type still before being treated for bipolar. Emotions =/= Ethics. I will downright drop shows for the unethical characters, though. I dropped Vikings and my bf laughs at me because any time he mentions Ragnar the smile disappears from my face and I get all "grrrrrr." I hate him because he is morally reprehensible imo after doing certain things in the show. I thought almost all of the characters were shit ethically, to the point where I disliked the show because I felt like I was watching a bunch of assholes. The characters I liked didn't get enough screen time to hold my interest. There was no one to "root for" in the show because I didn't care enough about the main characters. Most were not terrible, but Ragnar...Ragnar is a complete piece of shit IMO. IDK how I was supposed to be into the show with him as the main character. I hated him.

So no, I type as Ethical for Ethical reasons.

What is FFT?

Food for thought.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

fuck it im voice recording shit from now on, people will understand lol

[Adam Strange]

There will be several on here who still won't believe that I am EIE... Most of the people who have talked to me consistently over the past year do. I am an odd EIE because of my childhood trauma and decades of not knowing how to fix it.

The same probably could be said for you. At first, I thought you were LSI but then I got to see you unpack your turbulent history and could definitely see ESI.

The harsh reality is most people underestimate the effect of childhood trauma and its long-lasting effects so they will disregard the "trauma" argument as lacking credibility for personality development. It then becomes a futile exercise.

This may not be you, but I think survivors of long-term abuse can sometimes have a compulsion to double down to prove themselves and correct misconceptions because there's usually a long history of being dismissed and not heard. I know I do.

You can try but it will always be an uphill battle.

@Diametric, I think I saw you as EIE about 400 milliseconds after seeing your avatar.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Looool my LIE and I are more compatible via VC. Apparently.

[Adam Strange]

Looool my LIE and I are more compatible via VC. Apparently.

Maybe if you're not in the room, he feels less secure and so is nicer.

Personally, I find that communications with ESIs tend to be slightly worse when filtered through electronics.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Maybe if you're not in the room, he feels less secure and so is nicer.

Personally, I find that communications with ESIs tend to be slightly worse when filtered through electronics.

We usually communicate via text. We are in a long distance relationship. VC adds nonverbal language.

Somehow, I come off as more intense than I am. Sometimes I'm talking entirely normally, and he will be like "calm down" thinking I'm worked up when I'm not. I guess I speak using strong language

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

3. ISFjs are more likely to believe in objective truths than ISTjs. That is, ISFjs are more likely to believe there is a correct or best way of doing something than ISTjs.

I do believe in some objective truths.

6. ISTjs are more likely to make decisions based on logical reasons than ISFjs, who are more likely to make decisions based on their own feelings.

I wasn't allowed to do this. It was taboo to my dad. Had to learn to base things on logic.

4. When developing a plan of action or process, ISTjs tend to see themselves as "within the process"; they are immersed in it. Often because of this, they have more difficulty managing several plans at once. On the other hand, ISFjs tend to place themselves "outside of the process"; they dissociate from it. For them the process or situation is something external from themselves.

I thought it'd be the other way around...but I do relate to seeing it more externally.

5. When conversing, ISTjs types are inclined to communicate in the form of monologues, where each party has "its turn." Because of that they subconsciously attempt to transform a dialogue into a series of monologues. Conversely, ISFjs tend to prefer more of a question and answer style format.

I do both. When it's something that is vulnerable, sometimes I will share first to make the other person feel more comfortable sharing, and to prevent things from being too one-sided. People are uncomfortable with one-sided inquiry, you have to share.

7. ISTjs are more likely (than ISFjs) to seek new and novel experiences rather than returning to something already lived through. They will generally only re-read a book, re-watch a movie, or revisit the same place if they have forgotten it or are hoping to learn something new from it.

I'm the opposite of this, I rewatch favorite shows 50 times just because I love them, I replay songs to generate moods, etc.

8. ISFjs are not as inclined to compare and verify concepts as ISTjs. ISFjs assume that these can have only one unique interpretation (the "correct" interpretation), and ISFjs often do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently. Much more than ISTjs, ISFjs apply concepts such as "objective reality," "unequivocal facts," and de-emphasize concepts; ISFjs consider that they know the "right" way of doing things, how something "truly is," etc.

Yes, sometimes - my view that everyone needs psychological education is one of them, and I think it should be mandatory because that is the only way that everyone will actually get the education they need

9. ISFjs are often better at solving and minimizing interpersonal problems, where as ISTjs often struggle understanding them.

Hell no, interpersonal problems are my forte. My boyfriend says I talk like a therapist.

10. When ISTjs form opinions of others, these opinions are formed under the influence of their attitude towards the group to which the person belongs. To ISTjs, it is incomprehensible how it is possible to belong to two opposing groups at the same time:, i.e., "you're either with us, or with them and against us."

Lol what? This is the kind of bullshit I can't stand. Ugh. No, I have more accurate perceptions of others than this. No wonder they struggle to understand interpersonal things. People are individuals, you can't just group them together and associate them all with that. People are unique. Fucking aristocracy, smh.

11. ISFjs pay more particular attention to aspects of a situation or plan that are insufficient or lacking. This can be interpreted by others as ISFjs having a negative assessment of various situations and events (.e.g, "the glass is half empty). On the other hand, ISTjs pay more attention to what is actually present in a situation, and this can be interpreted as an affirmative or positive manifestation of the surrounding world, situations, possibilities, and prospects (e.g. "the glass is half full").

I really try to do both, particularly about people, but I know I'm negativist. In extremes that can result in picking everyone's flaws apart and not seeing the good in people, and I am not like that.

12. ISFjs are more likely than ISTjs to use "emotional anchors" that resonate with their internal emotional condition. These emotional anchors could be a book, a movie, a place, a song, etc. ISFjs use these anchors to strengthen their inner emotional state and thus will repeat the experience: e.g., re-reading a book, re-watching a movie, continually going back to a place to experience the emotions associated with it.

Already said above that I do this...oh, in fact, I just talked about this yesterday in another post, too.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Some peoples' typing criteria are just kind of made up out of thin air or something, honestly...in a way that almost strikes me as Te PoLR, funnily enough. I just feel like...bruh, do you even read?





The answer is yes—it actually does sound like something S types would do—at least 4 of the S types, according to Socionics...one of those S types being ESI. Literally is textbook. @Alive

I usually don't act like a jerk to people just for saying something idiotic, I generally think that's fucked up and I try to have patience/understanding...but when you are aggressively moronic, you deserve it and even need it sometimes in order to learn your lesson imo...which is that you should really humble yourself and be less forceful in your approach to others, lest you make yourself a fool, because you're not always right.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

I do not care about you lady leviathan. just let it go and put me on ignore. I haven't been on this website for a month and the day I decide to write something again you mention me about specific nonsense, it's almost obsessive. reinin dichotomies are not something that I care about, nor are they used much among socionists. you have convinced yourself that you are ESI, fine, it's whatever.