Member Questionnaire (Clarke)

[godslave]

I like to keep things simple and I like tips and tricks :

The creative function wants to control the aspects of the given IE (it's my job). For instance Fe creative wants to control the emotional aspects to harmonize them i.e. to maintain good mood in people. IEI can make aggressive people more peaceful by controlling their mood. They often use humour and jokes to calm them down.

Te wants to control the finances and practicality of things. Fi wants to control the relationships by imposing their values. etc..

The tricky thing about the role function : There in an ITR called Mirage. Basically a person takes the mirage for the Dual. With that said here are two examples of what I mean :

Fi lead will hide his/her feelings and true preferences and act like a logical person (Ti). A Ti lead will hide his/her logic and true opinions and act like an Ethical person.

Finally, keep in mind that a Type has two modus operandi : One mode directed at the socion (externalities in Model G ) and One mode directed at close psychological distance (Internalities) i.e. with the people you know well like family and friends. Now, here is the key trick :

If you are an Extrovert (Lead function is directed outside) then you'll behave and appear like an Introvert at close psychological distance (Internalities)
If you are an Introvert (Lead function is directed inside (within)) then you'll behave and appear like an Extrovert at close psychological distance (Internalities) .

Probs to Maria (IEI) from Ben Vaserlan channel from whom I got most of those insights. I hope that helped.

[godslave]

The mirage partner of an EII is an ESE. I'm not sure whether you meant that someone would take the mirage of their dual, or the dual of their mirage. I don't think the first would theoretically make sense. The second would mean that I would have to have exposure to a mirage partner. Potentially, this could be my mom. Normally I would doubt this because I don't have any kind of dual interaction with her, but I've had realizations that basically say that this could be true.

As a reminder, The Mirage is a Symmetrical ITR (kinda vice versa). I meant in society because of the role function an EII (to use your example) might at first take an ESE for an LSE and an ESE might take an EII for an LII. They both (the Mirage and the Dual) share the same temperament and energy (EJ and Ij in our example).

[Clarke]

As a reminder, The Mirage is a Symmetrical ITR (kinda vice versa). I meant in society because of the role function an EII (to use your example) might at first take an ESE for an LSE and an ESE might take an EII for an LII. They both (the Mirage and the Dual) share the same temperament and energy (EJ and Ij in our example).

So I'm guessing that you're saying that by chance, an EII might resemble their mirage's dual. I guess I don't understand the significance of this, since we could also say that an EII resembles their Look-A-Like or that they resemble their Benefactor's Quasi-Identical. I'm not saying this is problematic, I just don't understand the functionality of it.

This might also imply that all EII's resemble LII's in society, or that all EII's resemble LII's to ESE's in society. It seems like many people here who have thought that I was a LII weren't ESE's (one seemed to be a LIE).

I actually don't think I've ever mistaken an ESE for a LSE. They're completely different. Maybe I just haven't had enough exposure to non-standard people.

[godslave]

So I'm guessing that you're saying that by chance, an EII might resemble their mirage's dual.

yes they might, at initial contact and it's true for all the Mirage ITR.

I guess I don't understand the significance of this, since we could also say that an EII resembles their Look-A-Like or that they resemble their Benefactor's Quasi-Identical. I'm not saying this is problematic, I just don't understand the functionality of it.

We could reframe and equate the ITRs in so many configurations if we involve all the TIMs in relation to a single TIM indeed but I like to keep things simple and after all each ITR involves only two TIMs. As for the "functionalities" : https://socioniks.net/en/article/?id=95

This might also imply that all EII's resemble LII's in society, or that all EII's resemble LII's to ESE's in society. It seems like many people here who have thought that I was a LII weren't ESE's (one seemed to be a LIE).

Yes, that's true and it's related to the Role Function. We are talking "in society" and at far psychological distance the Mirages are naturally drawn to each other (because of the Role Function). Once the persons begin to reveal themselves to each other that initial confusion disappears but the ITR overall "feel" remains of course. That was my initial point.

I actually don't think I've ever mistaken an ESE for a LSE. They're completely different. Maybe I just haven't had enough exposure to non-standard people.

Maybe at close psychological distance. But in the socion while in their social adaptation (let's call it social persona even if it's not quite right) they are basically EJ temperament and the Fe or Te can be very persuasive even for a 2D function.

Note that in the light of socionics a retroactive shift in our perspective is kinda expected but it before socionics knowledge and typing people (assuming that they are typed correctly of course) we probably didn't have a clue about why those kinds of alchemies happens. Btw, with the Dual it's the opposite phenomenon. The Dual pair are not attracted to each other at far psychological distance (again because of the Role function !) but the more they know each other the more the Duality becomes obvious. We see that dualisation process a lot in romantic comedies, drama and books.

[Clarke]

yes they might, at initial contact and it's true for all the Mirage ITR.


We could reframe and equate the ITRs in so many configurations if we involve all the TIMs in relation to a single TIM indeed but I like to keep things simple and after all each ITR involves only two TIMs. As for the "functionalities" : https://socioniks.net/en/article/?id=95


Yes, that's true and it's related to the Role Function. We are talking "in society" and at far psychological distance the Mirages are naturally drawn to each other (because of the Role Function). Once the persons begin to reveal themselves to each other that initial confusion disappears but the ITR overall "feel" remains of course. That was my initial point.


Maybe at close psychological distance. But in the socion while in their social adaptation (let's call it social persona even if it's not quite right) they are basically EJ temperament and the Fe or Te can be very persuasive even for a 2D function.

Note that in the light of socionics a retroactive shift in our perspective is kinda expected but it before socionics knowledge and typing people (assuming that they are typed correctly of course) we probably didn't have a clue about why those kinds of alchemies happens. Btw, with the Dual it's the opposite phenomenon. The Dual pair are not attracted to each other at far psychological distance (again because of the Role function !) but the more they know each other the more the Duality becomes obvious. We see that dualisation process a lot in romantic comedies, drama and books.

I wasn't talking about close psychological distance. I saw a male ESE in Sol's IR test, and it looked completely different from what I'd expect a LSE to look like. I was attracted to the LSE's in Sol's video more than the ESE's, which seemed kind of dumb.

This doesn't really work for SEE's/IEE's either (provided I'm an ILI). Both of the Ne-base types I saw in the IR test were annoying.

Edit: I looked back at the thread. Some of the ESE video thumbnails look like LSE's. Maybe this has validity.

Note that I didn't watch these videos.

Edit 2: I watched one of the videos, and he seemed to be acting like a LSE. The other video wasn't available. I think this generally means that sometimes ESE's resemble LSE's, and not other times.

So this would imply that to ESE's, some EII's might look like LII's.

A question I have is, do those EII's look like LII's to other people?

Edit 3: I think I misinterpreted a post. You said they might misinterpret a mirage type to be their dual. Therefore, you seem to be right.

[godslave]

I wasn't talking about close psychological distance. I saw a male ESE in Sol's IR test, and it looked completely different from what I'd expect a LSE to look like. I was attracted to the LSE's in Sol's video more than the ESE's, which seemed kind of dumb.

This doesn't really work for SEE's/IEE's either (provided I'm an ILI). Both of the Ne-base types I saw in the ITR test were annoying.

Edit: I looked back at the thread. Some of the ESE video thumbnails look like LSE's. Maybe this has validity.

Precisely !

Here is a tip that I apply to myself : Don't underestimate the power of the Role Function. It's the function that is shown the most in society especially in social medias like Youtube. I think that The Roe F. "superficiality" is obvious to the TIMs who have that IE in their strong functions.
In order for an ITR "feel" to be relevant, obviously both types must be well...correctly typed ! People are prone to type quickly or trust other's typing too much. We all do mistakes so before jumping to conclusions we must make sure that our violins are in tune to use a french expression. And Trust your intuition !

[Clarke]

So I realized that I actually used Ne to support Fi. There was a scenario I imagined where someone said that someone was unethical. In the scenario, I said "well maybe she x". That should be looking at the situation from an alternate perspective (Ne) to support a viewpoint about ethics (Fi).

This isn't reliable anymore. I won't change my TIM for now.

[seeking it]

@Clarke I only read OP for this evaluation as follows. I agree that you seem ILI. ESI was a distant second from some of your lines & your avatar somehow lol but....you are not down to earth and you are just too "intuitive", I just sense how you have a real ease talking about all those conceptual things nicely summing them up and you don't try to have very set opinions on things. To me personally, it is also relaxing like, I don't know, but it's nice. Maybe just because I've known some people like that.


OK I glimpsed at your post #40 now lol, and I really want to comment on your observations on imagination so:

- (Firstoff before imagination stuff) If you would not say you are altruistic or kind, like an "empath", then that really excludes EII, I know that's a stereotype but hey
- I found your desc of your imagination interesting&fascinating. If I have imagination it's spontaneous and I never know why the "internal context" is the way it is. Actually mind saying more on what you mean by "internal context"? Is it just things like, where the place is in the future, details of the imagined events?
- I find it funny/strange (not in a bad way) that it hurts your brain to imagine the still image of the tree. For me it's naturally still. The only thing that's "moving scenes" in my imagination is emotional, dramatic stories, with people in the scenes, their faces, body languages & all the interactions between people. How well do you imagine that kind of stuff?
- You seem like a very introspective person, someone who really enjoys that stuff.

(Sorry I can't give you a type as far as my typing, or this would actually be helpful as some contrast But maybe it can help show something)

[seeking it]

I guess it makes sense for Se valuing to like violence in concept. I don't always like violence, especially chaotic violence, but for some reason war and death appeals to me. Usually, I seem to like it when it's systematic or ordered in some way, which is why I thought maybe it was attached to Te instead of Se.

I've thought that maybe death didn't always appeal to me, and I just made it appeal to me by numbing myself to the negative reactions I had to it. I think war always appealed to me as a concept, though.

I'm coming back to your thread.

Can you say more on how war as a *concept* appeals to you? And ordered, systematic, like? Do you like analyses of wars? I like to read the analyses on the war in Ukraine by a guy who I'm pretty sure isn't "high" for Se, or even Se valuing. He's just thorough and logical and nice to read, tho' I feel like he overdoes some of the explaining but he's very well informed, clearly has done his homework on the topics he writes about, so that makes his writings good.

While I seem uninterested in Te, I'm actually very uninterested in what I think is Fe. The extraversion of feelings to improve mood usually bothers me. Things that tend to have positive emotions and "happiness" tend to bug me on some kind of deep instinctual level. The tone of voice that comes with optimism feels bad for some reason. Not to be too impolite to Fe users here, but it feels "gross" and almost physically hurts.

Yeah I mean I'm sticking with Fe PoLR for you. That's just....classic stereotypical Fe PoLR. Also I still find you a very indecisive type and wanting to gather alot of facts rather than rushing to judgments, so another point for ILI

The only other option I can imagine for you is if I got it wrong about you being so intuitive, in which case it'd be SLI.

(I don't think I will have any new idea about your typing, it's either one of these two as far as I'm concerned)

I mean if types even matter, lol. Like, as an example, if you weren't always indecisive like this, then it's not really due to type i.e. inborn temperament/character, just due to something that's happened later in life.

Personality in psychology is defined as an enduring pattern of thoughts, feelings, behaviours, and the like, throughout most situations and throughout most of the life of the individual. So, the same for personality types.

Sometimes I see myself as resembling various other people. While I was writing the above post, I imagined my wording as being similar to Paladin Danse's from Fallout 4. These are usually a source of paranoia for me because I think they have some implication about my type (I typed Paladin Danse as a LSE, and the other likely thing he could be is a LSI based on others' typing of him).

I don't think I used to be paranoid about this before I learned about personality types.

I feel like, when you're having this paranoia, it would be helpful to cut the dots you've been connecting between the little observation (your impression of your own wording) and sociotypes. Try to find a non-socionics explanation for your bit of impression, or try to put it aside, until you have an idea about it later (again non-socionics). Or you can try and see what's behind/below the surface for your impression. If you're not able to go behind/below it is when it's time to put it aside as an observation without any explanation (let alone "socionical explanations"). Just my advice. Trust me, anything non-socionics will be a better explanation for these types of impressions, than anything that Socionics could ever offer you.

IMO the paranoia is a sign that the train of thought is going the wrong way. Paranoia has usually got nothing to do with reality.

I don't know if it is type related in any way.... I would say, probably not. Either way, the only one person I've ever heard talk like this, was an ILI-Te girl

I've only really been confused about myself after I got into personality types. Before then, I wasn't really that confused about who I was, or what I really wanted in life.

So wait what made you get into personality types in the first place?

[seeking it]

I've reconsidered this after your post about who you dislike. Seemed more LII than ILI

[seeking it]

@Clarke what made you choose LSI? I think LII still makes more sense for you. With your abstract analyses and expectations. Do you still have issues with the paranoia from Socionics btw?


PS: I want to fix one thing from my earlier post

"The extraversion of feelings to improve mood usually bothers me."

This can be a problem for unhealthy Fe dual seeking maybe

[seeking it]

I'm not an LSI. I'm an ISTJ (MBTI). There's no evidence that they're the same type.

I don't match the LII Filatova description. I also don't think I have unhealthy Fe dual seeking. I've had decent relationships throughout my life, and my friends and family considered me to be a solid, stable person. Despite this, I had trouble understanding moods or moodiness on an almost conceptual level. I knew people who were moody (right now I remember negative, but there were probably also positive), and I didn't understand why they needed or wanted to express them. My worst relationship was with a person who expressed their feelings. For some reason, I saw them as weak (I went on a tirade about it after unconsciously suppressing my dissatisfactions with them for months).

Ah ok I didn't realise that was MBTI. But ISTJ correlates with LSI, or at best maybe SLI, or it's a mistype in MBTI. Imo


Have you looked at LII-Ti subtype descriptions? I mean you don't have to be LII-Ti, I'm just curious if it fits anything about you. I think whatever you are in the system, you are 100% an IxTx type but that's probably not news to you.

By "unhealthy Fe dual seeking" I just meant the parts where you said that you really dislike emotional expression. Or maybe it's really Fe PoLR and then maybe you're SLI (ILIs don't seem to analyse in the manner you do it, you come off more "rigid" about connections than them, but idk really)


I've seen your posts on the psychological stress thing... and was going to suggest to you to stop trying to explain it with Socionics (what compels you to try and explain it with Socionics anyway of all things?). Try to educate yourself in psychology or seek the help of a psychologist or other mental health worker if you'd like to understand this psychological stress issue of yours.


I am not going to diagnose you as I am not a psychiatrist and it would be really inappropriate to do that here, but I would like to recommend to you to check out what the symptoms mean, the symptoms of losing memory, losing the ability to think clearly, not being able to sleep, not in tune with bodily needs, having a lot of random ideas constantly in your head (thinking too fast with high energy?), irritability around other people. It sounds like in informal terms a nervous breakdown, and in more formal terms might be a bipolar episode. Again I am NOT going to diagnose you, I am just strongly suggesting you look past Socionics to understand your issues with that mental stress. Socionics (or MBTI) was absolutely not ever meant to analyse the mind like this to figure out every little thing ongoing inside.


I will add a bit more. Your seemingly obsessive needing to analyse every little bit of your own thoughts or posts (or Adam Strange's posts etc.) to see what kind of reasoning it shows, I feel like maybe that's getting overly stuck on logic while trying to deal with your stress. I recall you mentioned in your other thread that you found it a bad idea to try and read facial expressions, so maybe it is just hard for you to process emotions when stressed out.

Edit: Linked to that, where you posted your reasoning on: "Based on the analysis, my reasoning pathway in the "Chosen Paragraph" is Fact Database -> Evidence-Based Support -> Ethical (Personal Feelings) Judgement. This is the healthy cognitive function flow of an ISTJ."

I would say that's a trait of logical people in general, who like to arrive to feelings/emotions from a pov of facts/logic. This doesn't even have to do with Socionics types much


Hope some of this helps.

[seeking it]

Will add this, from your other thread on your childhood you do sound more LSI or SLI than LII or ILI, though I would still not exclude LII-Ti:

"I have historically been an artist and a scientist. From a young age, I liked drawing, but I was also a rule stickler who was terrified of going against the rules. My drawing skills were good, and I had some creativity, but ultimately my work was based more on realism than anything impressionistic. I remember having trouble with spontaneity in elementary and middle school, being skeptical of brainstorming because it was difficult for me and because I didn't think it was necessary for me to solve tasks. I was drawn to science and adept at school due to my ability to understand math and remember information. Although I did develop some spontaneous characteristics in my mid to late teens (although I was always somewhat prepared for my spontaneous presentations), I don't think that I truly used my creativity until I suddenly developed story writing in my early 20s."

Perhaps you are just too into speculation now as part of your stressful period and that comes off more Intuitive, idk

[seeking it]

I don't think I was as speculative before psychological stress. However, I'm pretty sure that I was intuitive in the Socionics system. Growing up, I was extremely bad at sports that involved interacting with fast moving objects. I vaguely remember playing volleyball once and not being able to hit the volley ball back over the net (I couldn't position myself to interact with the volley ball). I guess I was not only bad at sports, but I also didn't like them (they weren't fun).

I'm the kind of person who, given the choice, stays at home all day and spends time on the computer. If I'm not on the computer, I'm probably doing something related to art, and if I'm not doing that I might be spacing out and imagining hypothetical scenarios. Most of these hypothetical scenarios have no application to reality, except that I sometimes come up with ethical principles or understandings based on them (if I met a criminal in real life, but they were a good person and continuously helped people, I would probably not really be bothered by them). I also rarely talk about the scenarios.

Ah OK. I think LII-Ti makes sense based on that. Stereotypically at least. Do you relate to this at all? https://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php/LII_subtypes

And out of curiosity, what do you think about this?

https://www.ptypes.com/idiosyncratic.html
And
https://www.ptypes.com/idiosyncratic-vices.html

Idiosyncratic imo is LII but that's just my own correlation I made. Because of the independent and unconventional thinking, basically. Going back to the disliking of emotions (whether that's "unhealthy" yet valued Fe or not), both this site (for Idiosyncratic vices, see "conventional emotional experience", "close relationships" as far as "irrational need to avoid (false bad)") and MBTI sources do mention extra difficulty with emotions, emotional expression for NT types. Seems like sensing and physicality help with physically expressed/bodily emotions or something

[nifl]

@seeking it

I was also a rule stickler who was terrified of going against the rules.

rationality, Ti valuing

I remember having trouble with spontaneity in elementary and middle school

rationality

SLI is not so likely, she has shown taste for Se valuing topics and is an orderly person, in thought at least. from an irrational logician slightly more carelessness, less rigidity is usual (Miss Messy is a probable example); she has base logic, i think - excluding LSE

[Clarke]

From "Aspects in the Valued Functions" (by Dmitry Golihov):

Fi as leading function of ESI (ISFj; Dreiser) and EII (INFj; Dostoevsky) - this person is very tenacious in his attachments and conservative in his feelings and attitudes towards another, keeps true to the feelings he develops. If someone does not agree with his valuation, it irritates him immensely. Someone who has deceived him once he will consider a liar forever, even if the person changes. Due to this, from aside he is often seen as a moralist, as these feelings and evaluations are the main part of his life. The product of leading function is often not shown to the outside world but instead is kept inside. Thus this happens most often when something annoys him in terms of its values. The negative is often seen more clearly than the positive. Thus he may hold onto such false impressions. Attempting to challenge their assessment is useless, for them something is just "good" and something is just "bad" and they will not be able to communicate clearly why this is so, except for making some general statements. Tries to keep himself near those with whom positive relationship was once established. Their division of people into "good" and "bad" is very clear-cut. The "good" people are liked and the "bad" people are despised; often this is hidden but if the person evoke a strongly negative response they may express it openly. If there are not enough people around him whom he values, this may inspire in him aggression, because this means that he doesn't exist. He is very sensitive to such concepts as duty, honor, dignity, morality, that is - to his own perception of these concepts. For him his own feelings, emotions, attitudes are important, not external, public ones, which may not be given any importance. He rarely changes his attitude towards anyone, especially from low evaluation to a higher one. He has a large supply of different emotions and their various nuances. He is very sensitive to other people deviating from his own moral code - it is as if he is constantly controlling them in this respect and taking care of them. His positive feelings are something that should be confirmed by behavior that coincides with his expectations of what is "good" and "bad". In society, they are sometimes misunderstood since their ethics are personal, subjective, and therefore may deviate significantly from what is accepted as a norm. But he is deeply entrenched into this subjective perception, thus his only resort is to find those who agree with him and accept him for it.

Here's a link to the article: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...Dmitry-Golihov

Everything underlined doesn't apply to me before psychological stress. The other material varies (some of it could reasonably apply to me before psychological stress, and other material doesn't seem to apply to me but doesn't clearly contradict any memories that I have).

I've written before on the forum (probably now deleted) that I don't have a good sense of ethics. Right now, I think that I have a pretty good sense of ethics, but that my understanding of ethics can change (it changed at least a few times during my life). Before my period of psychological stress, my ethics usually changed depending on reasoning (logical rationales) or the opinions of people close to me. In the second case, I think their opinions also had to be supported by good reasoning. When I explain my understanding of ethics to other people, I think I usually make logical arguments to explain why something might be "good" or "bad". Otherwise, I think I usually don't expect them to accept my point of view (in some cases, I might even doubt my own understanding of ethics).

I've encountered people in my life who say that people like Putin are "just bad", or say things like "evil people just do evil things" and I guess I never really understood them. From my point of view, people operate on motivations (such as a desire for survival, greed, care for loved ones) that make sense, even if they're "evil". I remember having sympathy for "evil" people who at least had understandable motivations. The people I had the most trouble identifying with are the ones who didn't have motivations that made sense.

I've also written on the forum that I would be Lawful Neutral in the DnD Alignment system. I think I have a moral system that's principled, but isn't necessarily "good". I also admire "good" (kind, principled, or altruistic) people, and usually don't like "bad" (selfish or cruel) people, but I also sometimes support systems that are cruel but establish order or make sense. I think I have a level of cynicism that stops me from trusting "good" systems, or trusting that "good" systems will lead to a functioning society.

Addressing some of the other underlined material, I'm also not really bothered when I'm not around people I value and I change my views about others pretty often. I used to have a belief that I could basically sit in a void by myself if I had creative tools (I could probably keep myself occupied by creating something). Early in my life, I think that my attitude towards others were basically neutral by default (people are "okay") unless they did something good or bad to me or people I considered to be at least "okay".

I think I generally have a good enough understanding of ethics to judge whether someone is ethical. I usually like to consider intent and whether they could've reasonably done a good action (or prevented themselves from doing a bad action). Usually, I try to understand the person's actions from their viewpoint (considering their personal motivations and the information they had at the time).

Edit (Last Edited 1/26/23, 4:28 pm GMT): Actually, I think there was one time in my life where I said that something was "bad" and didn't have a good rationale for it. I'm pretty sure I had rationales for why things were good or bad after that. I think I was also better at critical thinking afterwards. I guess I need to rethink this.

Edit 2 (1/26/23, 3:52 pm GMT): I don't think I clearly separated people into "good" and "bad". I think there were degrees of "bad". I don't know if this is relevant.

Edit 3 (1/26/23, 4:03 pm GMT): I think this analysis is questionable. There are some facts here that might correspond to my psychological stress period.

Edit 4 (1/26/23, 5:11 pm GMT): In "I think I have a moral system that's principled, but isn't necessarily "good".", the definition of "good" is from a societal perspective. I consider my moral system to be good from my perspective. However, in "I think I have a level of cynicism that stops me from trusting "good" systems, or trusting that "good" systems will lead to a functioning society.", the definition of "good" is according to my moral system. There are societal models that I would consider "good" (such as ones that don't have money or inequality) that I don't think our society should adopt because they don't seem logically feasible. As far as I remember, my attitude towards these societies was that they should be tested (we should create experimental models for them), but that doing so wasn't that important. I was more or less fine with modern western society.

[Clarke]

If I have Fi-mobilizing, there are a few reasons why I might seem like a rational type. These are the ones I know of:
-I have strong Fi HA and therefore mimic a Fi-leading type.
-I have strong N in DCNH (N emphasizes Ti and Fi).

Normally, analyzing whether I fit the Static/Dynamic Dichotomy would determine whether I'm Fi-leading or Fi-mobilizing. This is based off of a piece of information I read in the Static/Dynamic article on Wikisocion. However, I'm not sure that my language style is reliable enough right now to use for typing. As I've said in some of my other posts, when I went through psychological stress, some of my Dichotomies changed (like the Process/Result Dichotomy). I know for sure that my Process/Result Dichotomy changed because my reading style changed (I went from reading sequentially to reading randomly (picking random areas in a block of text to start reading)). That change never happened to me before psychological stress.

For reference, this is the quote I was talking about:

This dichotomy is useful for differentiating types that superficially may present themselves similarly, such as quasi-identicals or benefit pairs. For example, if one is not sure whether a person’s type is ILI or LII, this can be resolved by determining whether this person’s expression is dominated by static or dynamic constructions. In some cases, due to a strong emphasis on hidden agenda, the type in position of benefactor begins to mimic their beneficiary type and may type themselves as such, mistaking an accentuated interest in hidden agenda for their base function. However, all benefit pairs lie on different sides of the Static / Dynamic dichotomy and can be differentiated according to this trait.

Here's a link to the article that I got the quote from: https://wikisocion.github.io/content..._dynamics.html

Edit (Last Edited 1/26/23, 3:31 pm GMT): This is probably the best argument that I know of that I'm a LSI according to my knowledge. It would explain why I showed ILI characteristics. However, it doesn't explain why I don't match Ti-leading and why I have Fi-mobilizing characteristics (according to Dmitry Golihov's descriptions).

I'm also clearly pretty bad at Se in the physical sense. Unless Ni HA greatly weakens Se-creative, I don't think that Se-creative makes sense for me.

The quote above wouldn't explain why I look like a logical type if I'm an EII.

[Clarke]

rationality, Ti valuing

I was going to make a semi-joke about this earlier, but I'll do it now because I've been analyzing IE/cognitive functions descriptions. EII's also follow the rules due to their Ti-role (according to Filatova).

From "INFj description by Filatova":

The normative nature of this function in EII is especially clearly seen in how ardently this sociotype abides by the laws and regulations. She follows exactly the official norms and regulations that are endorsed in her society.

Here's a link to the article: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...ion-(Filatova)

I haven't made a solid conclusion about whether I fit the description in this article yet.

[Clarke]

I think that I might've fit the Exxp Temperament during psychological stress. I haven't done a proper analysis on this. I know that I had both characteristics from Exxj and Exxp. It seemed like some Exxp characteristics (like using others as a sounding board but not accepting their ideas) fit me pretty well during the psychological stress.

If I decide to do an analysis, I'll probably add it to this post.

[seeking it]

I'm a little confused here. I had trouble understanding moods before I was stressed. Did you just mean during the stress period?

Edit 2 (1/20/23, 7:08 am GMT): I guess I meant more than a few posts. He has alot of posts.

Edit 3 (1/20/23, 7:30 pm GMT): Based on our posts, I'm guessing you just meant when I was trying to read facial expressions.

So I don't remember all of my posts, but I think that I was trying to use MBTI psychological stress models to explain psychological stress in my first post. I mentioned using ESTP cognitive functions, which corresponds to ISTJ shadow in Beebe's system.

I meant during the stress period with reading the facial expressions yea

And I understand you tried to use MBTI stress models, but those suck. And were never meant to explain things like your symptoms and ways of thinking like that.

From looking at the characteristics I fit in both articles (or maybe the lack of characteristics I don't fit), it seems like I fit Ixxp by temperament. As I value Te-Fi (I like Te usage and don't like Fe usage), have poor Se, and resemble an LII, I think that the most reasonable type that I can be in that temperament is INTp (ILI).

From reading more, I still think you are LII-Ti. Pretty satisfied in this conclusion really

E.g. here "An example of how I get motivated to do tasks is that once, I had a few months to do a history paper. Because I never feel like doing projects immediately, I procrastinated until a month before it was due. As usual, I comfortably finished the project and got an acceptable grade (I think I completed it a week or a few days before the due date). Before the last month, I remember being aware of the time left before the last month started, and remember feeling like I was gearing up for it."

That sounds like Si/Ne valuing with gearing up for starting. But anyway classic Se PoLR of LII, your focus on self-control and stuff

I'd like to clarify my reasoning here. [2] looks like a fact that summarizes a wide variety of data. [3] looks similar to [2], but is actually a logical rationale for [2]. They're both facts (or a set of facts in the case of [3]), but [3] is detailed in nature while [2] is summarized. Basically, [2] is an internalized piece of information.

[4] is an ethical judgement about the relationship. It's considering the quality of the relationship from a personal, emotional perspective. This is different from [5], which is a summarized fact like [2]. Notice that [5] doesn't have any ethical judgements or logical rationales. It's an internalized piece of data. [6], like [3], is a logical rationale supporting a summarized fact ([5)].

All this still looks like just trying to arrive to feelings/emotions from a pov of facts/logic.

[4] is an ethical judgement about the relationship. It's considering the quality of the relationship from a personal, emotional perspective.

It may be an emotional judgment but it's really basic as far as verbalising emotion. Since it's as simple as using the word "worst", which is just on a scale of positivity/negativity (+ and -), which then can actually be expressed in formal logic too.

This is different from [5], which is a summarized fact like [2].

That just looks like it's based on your own value system. Basically, people who are strongly into logic rather than emotion, will often see emotional expression as a weakness.

[6], like [3], is a logical rationale supporting a summarized fact ([5)].

I mean, if you think "tirade" isn't an emotionally loaded word, then you're way more detached than even I ever was... You might want to look into alexithymia. May be a more useful concept to you than anything MBTI or Socionics....

Notice that [2] and [4] are different. [2] is actually more of a logical judgement, while [4] is an ethical judgement. I'm not considering the relationship as the "worst" from a logical perspective (pragmatic value, efficiency), but rather from a personal ethical perspective (I didn't like that relationship). I guess that might not necessarily be clear from my post.

I get that, but it's still a very basic expression of emotion that easily is based in how easy it is to translate into logic really. But if you meant to say you didn't LIKE the relationship, then yeah, that would sound a bit more personally expressive if you just said "I didn't like/I disliked..."

I still suggest Googling alexithymia.

[seeking it]

I guess I never encountered a rationale as to why MBTI stress models weren't functional. I'm actually curious about this.

It's hard to sum it up in a few lines. It's basically that I never found it to be satisfactorily working in practice. Whenever I'd try to make a prediction based on these models, it would usually not work out...falsified fast. Studying basic psychology of people, and learning more emotional intelligence helped me way more than any of the very speculative typology ideas.

I don't totally hate typology tho' because some "tropes" are interesting in them, interesting to read about.

There's actually a system called Attitudinal Psyche which uses the word "tirade". I borrowed it from there. Otherwise, I wouldn't have used it.

Ohh I see. I'd never have guessed that heh

I'm actually curious about your type. From what you said in the quote, it seems logical.

Yes. LSI > SLE are the two options for my type. But really, LSI >>> SLE, lol. Just some people suggested the latter too sometimes

I was actually wondering about this. I guessed it indicated the Judicious Dichotomy (due to needing time before starting a large task (getting mobilized)), but the Decisive Dichotomy also describes "subconsciously getting ready" for tasks. That's probably not an exact quote.

Yes, that's what I had in mind. I think I was also considering LII for you where you mentioned you don't like chaos, which is an Ij temperament thing, and either Se or Ne PoLR.

Edit 2 (Last Edited 2/4/23, 10:27 pm GMT): Oh. According to one of your posts, I guess you're a Ti-Dom and either my perfect dual or my Supervisor-Supervisee (or Beneficiary-Benefactor) in DCNH.

You might actually be less detached than me for multiple reasons. One is that D accentuates/emphasizes Te and Fe. I have DCNH characteristics that emphasize both Si/Ni and Ti/Fi (you could say that D is pretty low in my subtype). Therefore, I think I would be less likely to extravert emotions than you according to DCNH. I'm not completely sure about this.

Ok are you trying to say you are H and N in DCNH?

Other factors could include that you're a high E type in AP. I'm not sure about this either. I'm not personally sure how valid the system is. However, it seems to be similar to Psyche Yoga, and people here seem to take that seriously. I guess that could imply that you should check out Psyche Yoga instead.

I'm a 3E type in AP (I also think I'm this kind of type in Psyche Yoga). This explains why I'm emotionally detached, and why I go on what I now call "tirades".

I don't know if I'm 3E or 4E in AP, but one of those

[nifl]

seeking it, you are more likely an ethical type anyways. Ne valuing and irrational also somewhat more likely
you are too expressive and personable for introverted logic type.
you think too haphazardly for base logic type
you are even a little too enthustiastic about psychological perception towards others for Ne superego. Se types just don't usually have great interest in understanding the essences of people. just read basic theory and see how you are far from LSI, whereas Clarke could easily be one; you even see how strange you consider her deficiency in emotional understanding and her strong tendency to rationalize; for another logician, these are more familiar and less exotic traits. her distanced and formal communication is, furthermore, generally more familar for introverted and base logicians respectively (both of which you consider yourself to be). perhaps you find her quite interesting, considering your extended interaction with her - if she's your conflictor this is not so unusual, initially they're seen as a little adorable and attract attention, like duals. for me she's relatively uncomplicated as a person (we responded with similar arguments to some amusingly bad logic recently), but rather more quotidian than you see her. where i see her as more weird is her arduous, long-winded attitude to writing (base logic) and speculativity (Ti). she is certainly not any Delta type (she thought EII for a while). LSI is what i'm thinking, as of now. but LII could be.
there is the option of trying to make a video for opinions. you may find something interesting in yourself you didn't have eyes for before. i speculated about SEI or IEE as your type from behaviour on the forum

you don't like chaos

rational types are generally like this, not just introverted

[seeking it]

seeking it, you are more likely an ethical type anyways. Ne valuing and irrational also somewhat more likely
you are too expressive and personable for introverted logic type.
you think too haphazardly for base logic type
you are even a little too enthustiastic about psychological perception towards others for Ne superego. Se types just don't usually have great interest in understanding the essences of people. just read basic theory and see how you are far from LSI, whereas Clarke could easily be one; you even see how strange you consider her deficiency in emotional understanding and her strong tendency to rationalize; for another logician, these are more familiar and less exotic traits. her distanced and formal communication is, furthermore, generally more familar for introverted and base logicians respectively (both of which you consider yourself to be). perhaps you find her quite interesting, considering your extended interaction with her - if she's your conflictor this is not so unusual, initially they're seen as a little adorable and attract attention, like duals. for me she's relatively uncomplicated as a person (we responded with similar arguments to some amusingly bad logic recently), but rather more quotidian than you see her. where i see her as more weird is her arduous, long-winded attitude to writing (base logic) and speculativity (Ti). she is certainly not any Delta type (she thought EII for a while). LSI is what i'm thinking, as of now. but LII could be.
there is the option of trying to make a video for opinions. you may find something interesting in yourself you didn't have eyes for before. i speculated about SEI or IEE as your type from behaviour on the forum

Lol I mean I have a type thread, feel free to post your opinions there, I did not ask you to type me in another user's thread... Of course, I disagree with your opinion on my typing, but you are free to post in my thread, as that's where this stuff belongs. My thread is here, I will add the rest of my response there: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...e-(seeking-it)

Edit: Will add the bit on Clarke here. So, I do not find her rationalisations "exotic" at all, or her approach to emotional understanding "strange". I pointed out that she takes detachment further than even I would, so clearly I did not claim that it cannot be understood but I actually implied that I relate, though I am less extreme than she is with it, you misread my tone there.

I highly doubt I'm her Conflictor, either way.

rational types are generally like this, not just introverted

Actually it's specifically Ij types. Ej types are more dynamic and proactive.

Ij: "IJs are both static and rational, so they see reality as mostly not changing and when it does, it's in abrupt "leaps" from one state to another. An IJ draws inner stability from a stable reality, especially as seen through his leading function. That makes him confident that things will probably remain as they are despite what he sees as minor disturbances; periods of clear upheaval are very disturbing and the individual is anxious that things will "settle down" one way or the other soon enough."

Ej: "EJs are both dynamic and rational, so they see reality as in continuous, gradual, often imperceptible change. At the same time, an EJ has his own views of what reality "should" be. This inclines him to be quick to take action, normally using his leading function, in order to make sure things will remain, or become, as they should be, before change can get too far."

(From wikisocion)