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

[necrosebud]

Out of curiosity, what Socionics type do you identify with the most?

I definitely relate to not "lowering the criteria" also. "These are my values, and this is what I search for in those I form intimate relationships with." I understand that people are different, but I'm able to just admire the diversity from a distance. I enjoy listening to, and learning about, the variances in others, and it is most likely in this way that I am the most intellectually curious, but as for forming a personal relationship? That's a big no-no for me, unless they work on changing those things about themselves. I'm willing to guide them into those changes, as well, if that's what they actually want themselves. If I can work with them, I'll give things a chance. I'm insightful and accurate when it comes to developing recovery or change strategies, and I use active listening to place myself in their shoes and then come up with working solutions for that development. If they won't "come to my level," though, I won't go to theirs. I know myself, and I know what I'm compatible with. Writing it out, it sounds somewhat selfish, but it's not because I refuse to push someone into making changes they don't desire on their own. I believe that this would result in "losing yourself in someone else," and the person would inevitably begin to feel disconnected from their genuine selves later on down the road, so I don't believe in "changing for others." Therefore, it's not selfish, as I am only guiding them into their own goals. I do provide this kind of help for things I don't want, also, but if it conflicts with what I personally am compatible with, I consider those to be "therapy relationships" and I keep them at an arm's length without allowing feelings to grow into something more intimate than that. I maintain several relationships like this, I see "lost souls" and counsel them into where they want to go inside themselves. Those are the relationships I have to take regular breaks from so I avoid burnout.

completely reasonable

and I type as EII

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

I hate it when people use types as insults. As if it would matter if 6 was what I most related to? There's nothing wrong with that. There's only something wrong with the elitism and judment of using any type someone can relate to, as a weapon. Honestly, that sort of bias is also indicave there's a stronger chance of the elitist being mistyped, as well. Even if the people who do that aren't though, it's still disgusting.

[Riven]

I find typologies to be an useful and amusing tool, but one thing that really frustrates me about typologies communities is typing people just for the sake of it, wanting to find THE correct type for a person. And going a bit further, when people judge others for getting their type "wrong". On a literal sense, types don't actually exist, there's no factual proof for it, it's just a way for translating one kind of sociological information, which is how people apparently process and prioritize information (socionics) or basis desires, necessities, fears and how people act according to this (enneagram).

If enneagram 6, for example, is a type you can relate to and it gives you information on how to improve on a personal and social way, I don't think it should matter if you fit the type profile or not. I don't mean to say people's types should never be debated, but it shouldn't be in a "you can't be X because you do Y!" kind of way. It should be something done in a way to make the person in question reflect if the type they picked is actually one that is guiding them correctly. To give a more specific example, I hate people who'll type as idk ILI E5 and will just use it as an excuse to behave like a doormat and claim they're right about their types because they "fit perfectly". People would type me E3 because of how I behave on surface but I never found any helpful advice from reading about threes.

Discussing a person's type can be useful as long as both parts know each other and are willing to listen to one another. If it's just theoretical rambling I don't really see a point. Unless you're rambling in a way that seeks to improve the current systems so they can translate real information into theory better.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

I find typologies to be an useful and amusing tool, but one thing that really frustrates me about typologies communities is typing people just for the sake of it, wanting to find THE correct type for a person. And going a bit further, when people judge others for getting their type "wrong". On a literal sense, types don't actually exist, there's no factual proof for it, it's just a way for translating one kind of sociological information, which is how people apparently process and prioritize information (socionics) or basis desires, necessities, fears and how people act according to this (enneagram).

If enneagram 6, for example, is a type you can relate to and it gives you information on how to improve on a personal and social way, I don't think it should matter if you fit the type profile or not. I don't mean to say people's types should never be debated, but it shouldn't be in a "you can't be X because you do Y!" kind of way. It should be something done in a way to make the person in question reflect if the type they picked is actually one that is guiding them correctly. To give a more specific example, I hate people who'll type as idk ILI E5 and will just use it as an excuse to behave like a doormat and claim they're right about their types because they "fit perfectly". People would type me E3 because of how I behave on surface but I never found any helpful advice from reading about threes.

Discussing a person's type can be useful as long as both parts know each other and are willing to listen to one another. If it's just theoretical rambling I don't really see a point. Unless you're rambling in a way that seeks to improve the current systems so they can translate real information into theory better.

I actually agree with this. I will also add, becoming less like a type you relate to is kind of the entire point. Identifying with any of the Enneagram types, for example, was never supposed to be treated like a positive thing. There are people who go around being more like X or Y type just so they can "prove" to the community they are more like the type they identify with, when the entire point of Enneagram was the opposite. It was published so people would be like, "Yep, I'm a 9, but I know how to assert myself." "Yep, I'm an 8, but I'm aware of my vulnerabilities and capable of being vulnerable, etc." It wasn't designed to be a person's whole identity as they walk around excusing their dysfunctional twat behaviors. Using "type identity" as an excuse to force everyone else around to tolerate your shit doesn't make you more of a type, either, it just makes you a LARPing asshole. It's also possible to LARP as a type you genuinely most identify with, btw.

[Riven]

I actually agree with this. I will also add, becoming less like a type you relate to is kind of the entire point.

Exactly this.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

http://zhilkin.com/socio/en/

Lmao...if I do this test backwards, I get SEE. If I do it from first to last, I get ESI. That is, when I'm not selecting all of the answers, and I only answer up to the point where it gives me "no type." If I actually selected all answers, it would give me "no type."

Kind of just confirms what I already knew: "No type perfectly fits me, but I relate the most to ESI (I was able to get further with my responses before getting "no type" when I went forwards). However, I also relate to SEE in some ways."

[lavos]

I find typologies to be an useful and amusing tool, but one thing that really frustrates me about typologies communities is typing people just for the sake of it, wanting to find THE correct type for a person. And going a bit further, when people judge others for getting their type "wrong". On a literal sense, types don't actually exist, there's no factual proof for it, it's just a way for translating one kind of sociological information, which is how people apparently process and prioritize information (socionics) or basis desires, necessities, fears and how people act according to this (enneagram).

If enneagram 6, for example, is a type you can relate to and it gives you information on how to improve on a personal and social way, I don't think it should matter if you fit the type profile or not. I don't mean to say people's types should never be debated, but it shouldn't be in a "you can't be X because you do Y!" kind of way. It should be something done in a way to make the person in question reflect if the type they picked is actually one that is guiding them correctly. To give a more specific example, I hate people who'll type as idk ILI E5 and will just use it as an excuse to behave like a doormat and claim they're right about their types because they "fit perfectly". People would type me E3 because of how I behave on surface but I never found any helpful advice from reading about threes.

Discussing a person's type can be useful as long as both parts know each other and are willing to listen to one another. If it's just theoretical rambling I don't really see a point. Unless you're rambling in a way that seeks to improve the current systems so they can translate real information into theory better.

Types definitely exist, and they're integral to a person. You might have this view because it hasn't clicked on you yet (if it ever does, because some do and others don't) since you seem to be new.

One thing is that people misuse typology, another is that types don't exist.

[Riven]

Types definitely exist, and they're integral to a person. You might have this view because it hasn't clicked on you yet (if it ever does, because some do and others don't) since you seem to be new.

One thing is that people misuse typology, another is that types don't exist.

What I mean when saying types "don't exist" is that I can't help but look at them with a bit of skepticism. I tend to have a physicalist way of looking at reality, I'm wired to think physics and chemistry should be able to explain every aspect of reality. I've decided to follow my education on related fields to be able to conclude if this is correct or not, considering I'm even skeptical about this. I see other fields of knowledge as "extreme" generalizations and at the same time specifications, so it would only be naive to entirely dismiss other kinds of sciences or even pseudosciences, as they do have their own usefulness. So yes, types exist, but not as the perfect concepts we may read about on books or the wiki.

I wonder what exactly you mean by it not "having clicked" on me yet, is there anything else here I'm not seeing?

[lavos]

What I mean when saying types "don't exist" is that I can't help but look at them with a bit of skepticism. I tend to have a physicalist way of looking at reality, I'm wired to think physics and chemistry should be able to explain every aspect of reality. I've decided to follow my education on related fields to be able to conclude if this is correct or not, considering I'm even skeptical about this. I see other fields of knowledge as "extreme" generalizations and at the same time specifications, so it would only be naive to entirely dismiss other kinds of sciences or even pseudosciences, as they do have their own usefulness. So yes, types exist, but not as the perfect concepts we may read about on books or the wiki.

I wonder what exactly you mean by it not "having clicked" on me yet, is there anything else here I'm not seeing?

The moment you begin to observe the types with your +Ni, which should eventually happen if you truly are a LIE-Ni.

[Sol]

@Midnight Maverick
As you keep thinking strange for you ESI as own type, I'll point that those would not chosen nicknames with psychiatry diagnosis, what you did 2 times: Lady Lunacik, Lady Lunacy. They have lesser playful relation to own image and also don't like when people dig in their heads.
Then, for J types to change own nickname is lesser common, while you did this during a single year from April 2022 to March 2023 - 10(!) times.

ESI is ISFJ. To suppose to have as dominating behavior of not dominating function (J type can't have as dominating P function) - is m... exotic approach to thinking, where MBTI manual followers show themselves as not good in this (besides not reading Jung by the most of them to notice the mistake easier).

[Distance]

MM has expectations in every turn, and it is Fi attraction or repulsion to or away from objects.

Fi in front, not an ESFP by a long shot.

Ni conclusions, not a trace of Ne seeing the possible in places unseen in having potential.

Expectations, expectations, and expectations with being on the Ni clock, and judging.

Her Fi will qoute this post to make sure it has every nuance covered, Fi wants the authentic story told.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Types definitely exist, and they're integral to a person. You might have this view because it hasn't clicked on you yet (if it ever does, because some do and others don't) since you seem to be new.

One thing is that people misuse typology, another is that types don't exist.

This is the predominant assertion I read in response to, "types don't exist," but can you prove that they do? Is there scientific evidence, or is it a pseudoscience?

The point I'm getting at with this is that what you said has this stance as though you're more advanced and you've achieved a greater level of insight, but that is quite arrogant because the level of confidence that is underlying your perspective that typology is real has no substantiative basis. You believe it's true, and that's fine; but when someone else doesn't, to act as though they just have a lesser comprehension or capability than you is just an asshole way to position oneself, because you might be entirely wrong. Socionics might someday be disproven, and you could just as easily be a victim* of mere confirmation biases, Barnum/Forer Effect, and so forth.

*A victim by way of ignorance. Note: ignorance is not the same thing as stupidity, it is merely a state of lacking some knowledge and awareness, so please don't think I'm being rude and saying you're dumb, that's not my intention whatsoever. I really need to find a less provocative way to phrase it, but for now, for a lack of better words, I'll just use the word "ignorant." I am still working on improving my tactfulness, so I apologize if I've phrased any of this in some way that incites negative feelings. I used to be so blunt that I was inconsiderate of people's feelings, and I was always "telling it like it is," but with a level of harshness that just took things too far. I'm working on improving my communication.

What I'm driving at is that people's views should be respected more than this. It's messed up to posture yourself as though you've got a better grasp on a theoretical model that isn't proven to exist, just because someone else doesn't believe that it does.

[lavos]

This is the predominant assertion I read in response to, "types don't exist," but can you prove that they do? Is there scientific evidence, or is it a pseudoscience?

The point I'm getting at with this is that what you said has this stance as though you're more advanced and you've achieved a greater level of insight, but that is quite arrogant because the level of confidence that is underlying your perspective that typology is real has no substantiative basis. You believe it's true, and that's fine; but when someone else doesn't, to act as though they just have a lesser comprehension or capability than you is just an asshole way to position oneself, because you might be entirely wrong. Socionics might someday be disproven, and you could just as easily be a victim* of mere confirmation biases, Barnum/Forer Effect, and so forth.

*A victim by way of ignorance. Note: ignorance is not the same thing as stupidity, it is merely a state of lacking some knowledge and awareness, so please don't think I'm being rude and saying you're dumb, that's not my intention whatsoever. I really need to find a less provocative way to phrase it, but for now, for a lack of better words, I'll just use the word "ignorant." I am still working on improving my tactfulness, so I apologize if I've phrased any of this in some way that incites negative feelings. I used to be so blunt that I was inconsiderate of people's feelings, and I was always "telling it like it is," but with a level of harshness that just took things too far. I'm working on improving my communication.

What I'm driving at is that people's views should be respected more than this. It's messed up to posture yourself as though you've got a better grasp on a theoretical model that isn't proven to exist, just because someone else doesn't believe that it does.

Just have one thing to say. This post proves without a shadow of a doubt, that you have -Te/+Ti PoLR, which makes you either SEI or IEE.

[nifl]

From the photos, the possibility of an introvert type increases. she certainly doesn't look like EIE, so IEI is among the strongest version for me now. video would be better
behaviour is non-standard for IEI, though. and some of her descriptions about how others see her also was more extraverted (''intensity, overwhelming'')

[Sol]

By photos the associations have pointed on ENTP possibility.

It's useful to give normal typing data: video + questionnaire.
All in 1st message of the theme.

[Riven]

I'm looking at Filatova's photographs and I don't see any resemblance with ILE, and IEI. EIE I maybe-ish see it? But still she's got the "ESI stare", there's something about ESIs eyebrows that is just remarkable, like >:)

VI shouldn't be some obscure technique, it should be something noticeable at first glance, it shouldn't require a thorough analysis to show why someone looks like a type's photographs.

[Distance]

She is ethics bound. Good vs bad, right vs wrong.

That is framed socially overall, not just for herself.

The LIE above is right, but I see it as last Te. The PoLR is Ne.

She's thinks to backfill her ethics.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

This is the predominant assertion I read in response to, "types don't exist," but can you prove that they do? Is there scientific evidence, or is it a pseudoscience?

The point I'm getting at with this is that what you said has this stance as though you're more advanced and you've achieved a greater level of insight, but that is quite arrogant because the level of confidence that is underlying your perspective that typology is real has no substantiative basis. You believe it's true, and that's fine; but when someone else doesn't, to act as though they just have a lesser comprehension or capability than you is just an asshole way to position oneself, because you might be entirely wrong. Socionics might someday be disproven, and you could just as easily be a victim* of mere confirmation biases, Barnum/Forer Effect, and so forth.

*A victim by way of ignorance. Note: ignorance is not the same thing as stupidity, it is merely a state of lacking some knowledge and awareness, so please don't think I'm being rude and saying you're dumb, that's not my intention whatsoever. I really need to find a less provocative way to phrase it, but for now, for a lack of better words, I'll just use the word "ignorant." I am still working on improving my tactfulness, so I apologize if I've phrased any of this in some way that incites negative feelings. I used to be so blunt that I was inconsiderate of people's feelings, and I was always "telling it like it is," but with a level of harshness that just took things too far. I'm working on improving my communication.

What I'm driving at is that people's views should be respected more than this. It's messed up to posture yourself as though you've got a better grasp on a theoretical model that isn't proven to exist, just because someone else doesn't believe that it does.

Just have one thing to say. This post proves without a shadow of a doubt, that you have -Te/+Ti PoLR, which makes you either SEI or IEE.

I don't understand why you're seeing it from that angle, tbh. What I said here was that the way you were viewing someone in a lower mental state compared to you was unethical because there is no concrete data to support Socionics. Your mentality in this is comparable to the way Christians view themselves as more righteous than nonbelievers. A "faith" based belief, regardless of how firmly it is held by any persons, is able to be questioned, considered, and challenged. It is unethical for a believer in something to view themselves as superior in some way to those who are challenging, questioning, and forming their own views that happen to differ from yours.



I'm not telling you not to believe that Socionics is true, has usefulness, etc., nor am I telling anyone else to believe that it is true. I'm not addressing anything about Socionics or the belief in it.

What I am addressing is the unethical nature of what you did, which was essentially disrespecting other people by saying things that revealed the fact that you perceive yourself in some sort of superior positioning simply because you believe in something by way of sheer faith, and not by way of fact.

"A fact is verifiable. We can determine whether it is true by researching the evidence. This may involve numbers, dates, testimony, etc. (Ex.: "World War II ended in 1945.") The truth of the fact is beyond argument if one can assume that measuring devices or records or memories are correct."

https://writing.colostate.edu/guides...man/pop12d.cfm

^Actually, according to this resource, what you did would be more appropriately categorized as a prejudice. What you said was essentially, "Those who don't believe Socionics is true just don't have the same insight, understanding, comprehension, or mental capabilities, that I have." So, in essence, I am calling out your prejudice and telling you it's morally wrong, and I'm saying you should stop being prejudiced and treat others more fairly than that.

So, this is why I don't understand how you got anything Te/Ti related from this. What I was saying pertained purely to ethics in a way that speaks on good/bad, decency and niceness, morals, etiquette, humanism, empathy, compassion, attitude towards other human beings, how others are treated, think about other's humanity "let's hear his side," judgements determined by people doing things...all of which is Fi .

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

She is ethics bound. Good vs bad, right vs wrong.

That is framed socially overall, not just for herself.

Yes, which is Fi, and the fact that it is framed socially overall reflects High Dimensionality according to Socionics.

She's thinks to backfill her ethics.

Yeah, this is true, I do. I think even in this thread you can see examples of this.

The LIE above is right, but I see it as last Te. The PoLR is Ne.

I'm curious as to what strikes you as Ne PoLR. I am always interested in gaining more insight into, and awareness of, the many flaws I have (just as everyone else does, we are all human). I value self-improvement fervently.

There is not really a word that I feel describes my passion, vitality, the way this is one of my foundational core ethics, and the way it's so pivotal in my life, in the English language.

I think herzblut is a more suitable word for my feelings behind the extent to which I value it, if you know Deutsch.

There is a Greek phrase, "έχεις τον αμέθυστο" or "You have the amethyst" that might also describe it, but probably only in part.

"Vincit qui se vincit" - he who conquers himself, conquers (all).

From a Socionics angle, I could describe what I am trying to as: I value self-improvement via Fi and it is backed by a lot of pursuit/perseverance of it via Se.

[Distance]

It's in the type ESI. You use Ti, as a role function.

I see that, you make an effort to make sure you are consistently logical. Your Sig gives that away.

You are hard into yourself with Fi, and Ni pushes you into the future, and I don't see you considering but a few options and then you drop back into a singular goal.

It's like you prepare for all contingencies first, and that is reflected in your sig line too. That is Ne vulnerable IMO.

[Sol]

It's in the type ESI.

Among main reasons why some people here, especially noobs, assign some type is just when someone claims to have that type.

Such behavior has the term "conformism".
It's higher for F types which generally valued emotions above logical truth. As disagreements are not pleasant to be got.
And for people who are not assured in own opinion (as in case of noobs) so are more predisposed to agree with others.
If she'd claimed another type - you'd said the same, just would input that other type. And probably would add similarly bad arguments (see term "rationalizing").

Examples of ISFJ:1 , 2 , 3
Then compare impressions from her nonverbal on photos. Also think about dichotomies and valued regions.
Base Fi are _warm_ and emotionally soft.

P.S.
Stably and highly expressed weak and nonvalued function in behavior, what is how "role" explanation is used - is heretical nonsense. As much other of what _hypothetical_ "model A" is, which contradicts in many parts to _basic_ theory without significant basis.

[Squirrel]

what is how "role" explanation is used - is heretical nonsense. As much other of what _hypothetical_ "model A" is, which contradicts in many parts to _basic_ theory without significant basis.

You think ITR is real and correct yet you fail to see how some of it is based on functions placement

Rejecting Model A's function's such as Role and PoLR because they are "heretical nonsense" means that you reject the validity of some ITR, do you realize the contradiction that you do or I have to waste some time explaining this?

[Distance]

Among main reasons why some people here, especially noobs, assign some type is just when someone claims to have that type.

Such behavior has the term "conformism".
It's higher for F types which generally valued emotions above logical truth. As disagreements are not pleasant to be got.
And for people who are not assured in own opinion (as in case of noobs) so are more predisposed to agree with others.
If she'd claimed another type - you'd said the same, just would input that other type. And probably would add similarly bad arguments (see term "rationalizing").

Examples of ISFJ:1 , 2 , 3
Then compare impressions from her nonverbal on photos. Also think about dichotomies and valued regions.
Base Fi are _warm_ and emotionally soft.

P.S.
Stably and highly expressed weak and nonvalued function in behavior, what is how "role" explanation is used - is heretical nonsense. As much other of what _hypothetical_ "model A" is, which contradicts in many parts to _basic_ theory without significant basis.

I have a hard time picking through your points because of the translation differences. It's pretty broken.

My statement of role function or vulnerable fits into her MO on her in posting style, as i see it. It's not a confirmation bias by looking for it to fit. In my first encounter with MM i thought IEE for a couple of reasons, and it was looking a few things and a intuitive guess in accordance with that archetype, but leaving it conditional.

You are typing in accordance with how sentences form, and in direction of thought in the models i'm assuming in the translation, or showing a certain type of "warmth" for this poster. I'm typing by things i see organically in a few pieces that i see, like Fi and speaks concretely, not intuitive overall, and lack of Si/Ne speaking, but moving into the future with Ni singularities. Given those conditions in Ne vulnerable these types over plan as contingencies as a minor defense, or background worry about events unexpected events disrupting the Ni Ha goal.

I'm filling in a lot in a pattern overall.

Pattern matching is intuition by filling in the gaps and working it down to a high probability, not necessarily an F guess.

An F guess leaves out facts because it feels like it should, or ignoring facts, because it hurts, i guess as i think what your F idea is here. I don't do that. If it looks like a duck and walks like one, then it looks like a duck via pattern matching. If someone displayed a model that i understood better and i was wrong i will leave it in favor of one that fits.

I'm looking for overall a way to fit into objective thinking via facts. Not how i feel it should be. Things should be as they are, not how i want it to be.

Just a tip, but get ChatGPT and you will make a better impression on the forum. You are hard to read, it looks pretty broken, the words are misplaced and the intention becomes unclear. I get about 60 to 70 percent and guess at the rest.

[lavos]

I am not interested in debating whether I'm "prejudiced" or not, so I'll just ignore that post.

You probably are: IEE-Fi 6w7 so/sp, CC (the only correct part of your self typing).

[lavos]

If someone doesn't believe in Socionics or that types exist, they should not be in this forum (my opinion).

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

Examples of ISFJ:1 , 2 , 3

It's funny, because I don't even actually agree with your typing methods, etc. in general, nor do I even agree that VI is valid, but those women in those videos do resemble my own nonverbals...particularly #1.

Then compare impressions from her nonverbal on photos. Also think about dichotomies and valued regions.
Base Fi are _warm_ and emotionally soft.

Yeah, the nonverbals actually match, despite me disagreeing with you in general, which I've already explained and expressed above.

As for being warm and emotionally soft...yes, I am, very much so, to my inner circle. Just because I don't walk around being a doormat to everyone, doesn't mean I don't have that softer side. Which, by the way, that also happens to be how ESI is described as well. It's like, you omitted the other side of the ESI personality, which is to be colder and more distrusting of others, but warm and soft toward the few/limited number of people they have in their inner circle.

For ESIs, connections with others mark a predominant and over-arching life focus. Though close contacts for ESIs often tend to be sparse, when ESIs find a degree of mutual respect towards others, they can be deeply empathetic, compassionate, and loyal. They may emphasize close connections and mutual understanding with others above all other things.


ESIs' attitudes towards others are commonly characterized by skepticism and distrust, and their overall demeanor may be private, closed, uncommunicative, and individualistic. They may feel as though they can see into the motivations and character of others, and sometimes are instinctively be quick to judge others harshly. Similarly, they may also have difficulty forgiving others and often react coldly to those with past transgressions, or who they see as immoral or characterologically reprehensible. They may by nature adopt a standoffish, confrontational attitude in lieu of a conciliatory one, which may in fact only serve to aggravate their emotional conflagrations. At the same time, however, they may see their judgmentalism as hypocritical and strive to treat others with reciprocity and fairness rather than preemptive judgments. In this way, their behavior can be an internal conflict, oscillating between the predominance of a curtain of friendliness and a core of distrust. Most commonly, ESIs hold an air of both amicable receptiveness, but also one of penetralia and unapproachability.


https://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/ESI-ISFj/

I'm expecting you to disagree with this, which doesn't bother/offend me at all, but I can't take any input from you seriously. The fact is that you don't even actually know me, and it appears to me that you are basically determined to cherry-pick the information so that it will align with the conclusions that you've already decided on beforehand. You're more focused on twisting or cherry-picking information (both about me personally, and even also about Socionics types themselves) so that it matches your preconceived notions and conclusions about me, than actually being inquisitive and open-minded enough to match the actual facts to the actual theory. It seems to me as though, for whatever reason, you just are determined to oppose the idea that ESI is the closest match to my actual self.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

If someone doesn't believe in Socionics or that types exist, they should not be in this forum (my opinion).

So, are you basically saying that those who don't believe it's real should be prohibited from expressing their thoughts, ideas, and insights, as to why they don't believe Socionics is legit?

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

An F guess leaves out facts because it feels like it should, or ignoring facts, because it hurts, i guess as i think what your F idea is here. I don't do that. If it looks like a duck and walks like one, then it looks like a duck via pattern matching. If someone displayed a model that i understood better and i was wrong i will leave it in favor of one that fits.

I'm looking for overall a way to fit into objective thinking via facts. Not how i feel it should be. Things should be as they are, not how i want it to be.

I'm this way as well. It's a common stereotype amongst the typology community, but also a myth, that Ethical types are always "feelings before facts" so that they neglect and/or outright deny reality/truth.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

I am not interested in debating whether I'm "prejudiced" or not, so I'll just ignore that post.

You probably are: IEE-Fi 6w7 so/sp, CC (the only correct part of your self typing).

I disagree, but you are free to believe what you wish to. Since the time I became active on this forum I have never strayed from my conclusion that ESI-Se-C is the closest fit, and I doubt I ever will. Sometimes I think I'm sort of an ESI meme because of how closely it resembles me. It doesn't really matter, though, in the end.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

like Fi and speaks concretely, not intuitive overall, and lack of Si/Ne speaking, but moving into the future with Ni singularities. Given those conditions in Ne vulnerable these types over plan as contingencies as a minor defense, or background worry about unexpected events disrupting the Ni Ha goal.

Damn...you're very perceptive. I'm surprised that someone was even able to catch on to that. Genuinely impressed, which is not easy to do.

EDIT:
Tbh, what you said here has made me more open-minded to the idea that Socionics actually can sometimes help people analyze others better than they could prior to learning it exists. I've been under the impression that it only leads people to form false assumptions about others with more confidence than they had prior to learning it existed, and that confidence originates from the fact that there is an "ethos" resource/construct/concept that "says so" and offers some sense of validation to their viewpoints. Now, after reading this, I'm wondering if it is more related to the ways someone uses these systems (and whether or not they take them too seriously).

[Distance]

Damn...you're very perceptive. I'm surprised that someone was even able to catch on to that. Genuinely impressed, which is not easy to do.

EDIT:
Tbh, what you said here has made me more open-minded to the idea that Socionics actually can sometimes help people analyze others better than they could prior to learning it exists. I've been under the impression that it only leads people to form false assumptions about others with more confidence than they had prior to learning it existed, and that confidence originates from the fact that there is an "ethos" resource/construct/concept that "says so" and offers some sense of validation to their viewpoints. Now, after reading this, I'm wondering if it is more related to the ways someone uses these systems (and whether or not they take them too seriously).

Yeah parts of the systems work from my knowledge of it. Def.

My dad and his sister are PoLR & i picked out a pattern in your posts that match my IRL experience with Ne vulnerable.

So i'm not exactly soothsaying as a prophet of the sytems, but i recognize some vulnerables IRL, like Ni PoLR in my sister in-law & wife is Te PoLR.

As in the movie Dune, the Baron said everyone gets one, that is the heart plug, so we all get a vulnerable. lol.

I think Si might be the easiest, but IDK,

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

I am not interested in debating whether I'm "prejudiced" or not, so I'll just ignore that post.

You probably are: IEE-Fi 6w7 so/sp, CC (the only correct part of your self typing).

Neither am I interested in debating my own personality traits, thoughts, behaviors, experiences, feelings, fears, defense mechanisms, motives, whether I value this thing or another, what my everyday experiences are, what my childhood experiences were, what other past experiences have been, how I've responded to said experiences, and whether or not I'm self-aware and competent enough to be able to know what my personality is like better than some rando on the internet can...so I will ignore your typings.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

I'm open to hearing opinions, thoughts, insights, and perspectives, that differ from my own. I understand that no human being is entirely self-aware, nor are they always right. The problem I have with the posts that disagree with my typings is not that they disagree. The problem I have is that I'm not hearing what those who disagree think, I'm hearing an overall depiction of their beliefs about the theory in the ways they've learned it. It's not that interesting because I don't know anything about them based on their own original thinking. I could replace them with someone else who thinks the same way, and that means they're not here. It's not pleasant. They're not integrating the specifics of their personal experience with what they've been taught in order to synthesize something that's genuine, surprising, and engaging in a narrative sense as a consequence. That is the pathology of believing in something without using your own critical thinking skills. It's not good. No one that disagrees with my typing is coming to me like, "I've observed this behavior and pattern in you, therefore I see things this way." No, people are coming to me and trying to battle type me on the premise of baseless assumptions which they're unable to provide any concrete examples to support, and the vast majority of those assumptions are actually inaccurate, because the people disagreeing don't actually know anything about me because they haven't actually made any efforts to because they haven't integrated their own thought processes. It's as if they're taking shots in the dark. The problem with this pattern is that it's not only a faulty approach that causes them to arrive to conclusions that are just plain wrong and delusional, but it's also entirely predictable and there's nothing interesting about it. There are no original insights or personal opinions based on their own observations of concrete manifestations of who and how I am. The only one who has even come close to adding that personal thought process is Sol, but even his opinions that are his strongest points are short-sighted at best.

[lavos]

So, are you basically saying that those who don't believe it's real should be prohibited from expressing their thoughts, ideas, and insights, as to why they don't believe Socionics is legit?

I'm saying that it does not make sense to operate a theory that you do not believe in.

Neither am I interested in debating my own personality traits, thoughts, behaviors, experiences, feelings, fears, defense mechanisms, motives, whether I value this thing or another, what my everyday experiences are, what my childhood experiences were, what other past experiences have been, how I've responded to said experiences, and whether or not I'm self-aware and competent enough to be able to know what my personality is like better than some rando on the internet can...so I will ignore your typings.

You made a typing thread. Nobody is discussing the other things you are listing.

[Fluffy Princess Unicorn]

I'm saying that it does not make sense to operate a theory that you do not believe in.




You made a typing thread. Nobody is discussing the other things you are listing.

Not even going to address your inaccuracies or the flaws in your assumptions here. Don't bother replying to any of my posts from here. I'm permanently putting you on ignore, because not once have I ever seen you contribute something positive, insightful, or beneficial to any thread, and it has now reached the point of affecting me personally by wasting my time. You are free to keep replying anyway, but I thought I'd give you the courtesy of telling you it'd be a waste of your time to.

[lavos]

Not even going to address your inaccuracies or the flaws in your assumptions here. Don't bother replying to any of my posts from here. I'm permanently putting you on ignore, because not once have I ever seen you contribute something positive, insightful, or beneficial to any thread, and it has now reached the point of affecting me personally by wasting my time.

Goodbye.

[Amoeba]

How can you expect people to guess your type without a video or pictures. Attention seeking post.

[lavos]

How can you expect people to guess your type without a video or pictures. Attention seeking post.

She posted her pictures here: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...l-women/page17

My reply was this post

A picture by chance I found. This is a real ESI-Se 8w9 sx/sp (probably CD). So you guys can compare with other presumed ESI-Se's:

Which is exactly a person with the types that she purports to have (all the while, while denying the validity of Socionics). This was posted for VI purposes only--not implying anything else.

I'm done interacting with her, because if she is not IEE-Fi, she is SEI-Fe (since the intertype with her seems too negative even to be IEE-Fi-Benefit). I was mostly glancing over her posting, and I finally found evidence that she is not ESI (in that she has -Te/+Ti PoLR and not DS). I mentioned it, and she quoted an old post of mine in this thread, to "get even with me" or whatever for rejecting her self-typing. I don't think she is a good influence for the forum, and frankly, don't understand what she is doing here. Hoping she ruffles the wrong person and gets herself banned.

Further typing of this individual (for the sake of completion):

Trifix: (probably) 6w7-3w4-1w2 (based on VI and her interaction here)

[VewyScawwyNawcissist]

yes i know u dont like VI. i think you are ennea 6. @Dreymagine is ennea 6 she also looks like you in that way i mean. i also see very strong 8 fix in ur face. im not sure if u are 6 or 8, but I don't think its unlikely that you are 6.

[Metamorph]

I'm saying that it does not make sense to operate a theory that you do not believe in.

...She believes in it as I believe in it: there are accurate parts of it, but it's not a religion for us.



Apparently, based on some things I've read and discussed recently, you could actually be LIE for the same reason Alive could be LII and Sol could be LSE: having an idée fixe is apparently an attribute of a certain subset of logical function dominants in general, rather than the characteristic of any kind of type or subtype of them or of "weak logic." This thread is absurd. I consider this whole board a waste of my time which is why I haven't posted here for the last several days, but this thread takes the cake. You could really be LIE and Midnight Maverick could really be ESI and you could still both hate each others' guts for other reasons that aren't the ITR of your sociotypes. Socionics is fine, it's the16types.info that sucks, and if I have to post that here for certain kinds of people, done, it is finished.