serenaeva/felinekisses's DCNH type

[serenaeva]

I will admit that I've never been into Gulenko as much as i am into Aushra and in spite of some of his (IMO) bad typings in practice, i have always found his theory to be interesting and potentially insightful.

We can all indeed agree to disagree re: my self-type (especially people's odd tendency here on this forum to insist i'm EIE although virtually no one in any other community has ever typed me that), but what's striking to me is that while more than half of the people i come across type me ESI sooner or later (i'd approximate it to about a little more than 3/5ths of all people), the Model G-favoring typists in particular or even casual adherents seem to nearly absolutely always believe i am an ESI. I've perhaps met only about two who thought i was LSI.

Now, the tricky part about it is that among the overwhelmingly ESI-inclined Model G/DCNH consensus.. the variance in terms of the subtype system is huge.
I've been typed just about virtually every subtype and there isn't even a pattern to it (like perhaps most people assuming i'm Dominant or whatever).

The best argument i've come across is Lambsauce's (Socionics Discord) re: me being a Normalizing ESI. He typed me an ESI at first and then started leaning LSI after hearing me argue with people a lot in voice chat in relation to many different topics, essentially saying that he grew progressively skeptical of me being Fi base given my insistence on always being analytical and tendency to produce a lot of logically sound arguments. We then had yet another typing session and he said i was very likely ESI, but one with unusually good role Ti. Hence a Normalizing ESI (rather than LSI because of what he sees as prevalence of Fi usage in my general mode of operating).

I'm possibly leaning that subtype for myself, given that i don't believe i quite relate to any of the other ESI subtype descriptions as much as i do with this one. But people like @Braingel and @Suspiria for example insist i could be Dominant ESI + sx4 which would possibly explain people's confusion re: my type and seeming too "out there" for an ESI. I know @Braingel is kind of split on ESI and LSI for me though, so i am not sure how much i should take that into account.

I do believe that if i am any other type other than ESI (which i am quite certain of to begin with), LSI or ILI is the second best fit. So i understand where people are coming from re: arguing i'm + ego, even if i don't necessarily agree. As well as all the ILI typings i used to overwhelmingly get when i got into these communities.

[qaz00]

N-EIE

[serenaeva]

N-EIE

Any reasoning for it?

[Tallmo]

Any reasoning for it?

I don't know your type, but this should be an EIE Normalizing if you want to compare.

[serenaeva]

I don't know your type, but this should be an EIE Normalizing if you want to compare.

And i don't relate to this girl at all whatsoever.

[Adam Strange]

I don't know your type, but this should be an EIE Normalizing if you want to compare.

I like the way she doesn't seem to blink.

Why do EIE's always look like there is a crowd of people inside their heads, looking out at you through their eyes?

[serenaeva]

I like the way she doesn't seem to blink.

Why do EIE's always look like there is a crowd of people inside their heads, looking at you out of their eyes?

Because there is. They're perpetually performing in front of an audience, imagined or not.

[Aster]

N or D side of things for sure, imo- def rational with rational subtype ‘seeming’.

[serenaeva]

N or D side of things for sure, imo- def rational with rational subtype ‘seeming’.

Yup. Based on my Discord server replies, N or D seems like the most common conclusion. Namely Normalising.