This INTx sound like this other INTx thread

[Socionics Is A Cult]

And how should we explain the fact that most INTps on this forum think that they are INTPs and most INTjs think that they are INTJs (for example Sergei Ganin)? How can I be the same socionic type as Ganin and UDP, considering the fact that they are INTJs and I am an INTP?

I'll answer this seperately. Most people probably consider themselves the same type for reasons too broad to be relevant to the argument. I think the way you talk you sound most similar to someone like Subterranean, but both of you different types to people like TC and UDP.

In degree of similarity, I would see the following people in this (rough) order:


I think niffweed and tcadilllg sound similar but are different types, and I think Jonathan maybe a INTp (Te subtype) but I'm not sure. Gilligan sounds like the equilvent of FDG. I'm not really sure about what subtypes parts of the list fall into, and there's the possibilty it isn't accurate! . I don't know why I put thehotelambush at the top of my list, but I saw UDP being more like science as magic than me. I think Phadreus sounds similar to snegledmaca, not certain why?

Have fun!

[Phaedrus]

Good job, Subterranean! I don't have any strong disagreement with any of your typings there, but of course the nuances are not certain.

[Creepy-bg]

Jesus, no offense, but that's gotta be the most ass backwards chart layout I've ever seen. What are they teaching you in the UK?

as far as the typings... whatever, no complaints

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Good job, Subterranean! I don't have any strong disagreement with any of your typings there, but of course the nuances are not certain.

In your case, I think you sound like snegledmaca because you give give off a vibe of mysticism + quite a dark seriousness. I can't really describe it, but it seems quite moody (I get that vibe quite strongly from niffweed, tcadilllg and partly from science as magic, but there might be no continuity there - I don't know if is similar to in create this vibe, or . I expect strong and strong may be reasonable - it reminds me of someone reading out of a complicated, long text book.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Jesus, no offense, but that's gotta be the most ass backwards chart layout I've ever seen. What are they teaching you in the UK?

as far as the typings... whatever, no complaints

Meh . I have the feeling that you posted only so you could comment on my lazy-ass graph. I wasn't showing a dichotomy of most extroverted to most introverted etc. - but showing a continuity between INTj\ENTp and INTp\ENTj as well as INFp\ESTp as reference points. There might no cross over points from INTj to ENTp, so I put a dotted line to prevent complaints.

(And as a lazy-assed trainee archaeologist in the UK who is taught the many ways of holding a trowel, I could go into how YOUR tanks (*ahem* did I slightly raise my voice then?) crushed thousands of year old mosaics in Baghdad, and smashed up antique pots to use as filling in sandbags. But, being American, you probably can't see I'm being ironic, and will consider it your patriotic duty to come over here and kill me ).

[Creepy-bg]

lol yeah... we're kinda dicks, we'll do that sort of thing if you let us

[aestrivex]

i don't have the slightest idea what that chart is supposed to denote.

why are the ESTps there? who are they supposed to be similar to?

[Creepy-bg]

i don't have the slightest idea what that chart is supposed to denote.

why are the ESTps there? who are they supposed to be similar to?

I think he's trying to say that FDG is similar to Niffweed? and Jonathon to Expat? hence it should be read as two continueums or something... ESTp bleeding over into INTp into ENTj. Am I close here?

[aestrivex]

that wouldn't make a terribly large amount of sense.

[Creepy-bg]

that wouldn't make a terribly large amount of sense.

I don't know?!?!? it's his damn chart! don't ask me... I'm just a stupid tank driving American

(sorry SubT... [/thread hijack])

[Socionics Is A Cult]

It's supposed to be read from bottom to top (it doesn't fold over from top to bottom). So Herzy is a version of Slava, and Gilligan is a version of FDG. Jonathan sounds like Expat in disguise (strong ?). On that chart, Niffweed and Phadreus have strong (I theorize) and tcadilllg and science as magic have strong . I'm not sure about that but I put people of what I considered similar moods close together...as for the dotted lines, I don't think the niffweed and FDG and Gilligan and thehotelambush sound THAT similar - all four have different types. I think I was putting people in similarity due to subtype. I'm not sure this makes sense, but that would mean INTj N subtype is closer to ENTp T subtype than ENTp N subtype. (Maybe just ignore that bit :wink: ).

[Socionics Is A Cult]

ESFps aren't there because I don't know any.

I real only put this thread here for the hell of it, but superficially, niffweed and FDG have similar kinds of outbursts (despite being different quadras).

[Logos]

Interesting chart.

[FDG]

I real only put this thread here for the hell of it, but superficially, niffweed and FDG have similar kinds of outbursts (despite being different quadras).

What do you mean?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

The way and types come out of outbursts is similar to each other, I can't really explain how. But with and types , the outbursts can seem out of context or missing a few steps in their reasoning.

(I think maybe shows its weakness by being unaware of the context of objects, and can show it's weakness by being unaware of the obvious implications of the presence of objects, or something.)

I don't think you and niffweed are THAT similar; I only put the ESTp bit on to contrast with ESTp really, to get a sense of similarity. The chart should show ENTps through to INTjs on the left hand-side, and then a continuation roughly where that ends on the right hand side of INTp to ENTj. It shows degree of similarity to neighbouring people, but not necessarily across the dotted lines. So, ENTjs are more dissimilar to ENTps than INTps are INTjs (at least in my perception of them).

I put this chart here to provoke discussion, and so people would do their own, but improved. There isn't any real basis for the chart, I just wanted to see what people said, apart from saying the graph was crap!

[FDG]

Yeah, I think the chart was perfectly understandable, after 2-3 seconds of looking at it I mean. I just wanted to know where the similarity lied, but if you don't know, it doesn't matter, eheh.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

IMO types and show their confidence and ignorance in a similar way (all types have their own particular confidences and ignorances, which they may not be aware of).

EDIT:\\ When a ESTp is confident of a physical truth, they criticise others who can't see it, a INTp, on the otherhand, might counter-attack criticism about physical, here and now truths - both seem similiar. I think this is why I consider and to have similar moods (at least superficially).

[Phaedrus]

I definitely agree with Subterranean that Gilligan comes across as a version of FDG. That is exactly what I have thought myself. Jonathan seem to be better at explaining his ideas than I am, and in that sense he is more similar to Expat. If that indicates strong or not I leave for others to determine. But I am very dissatisfied with almost every socionic type description of the logical "business-minded" type of INTp. The prototype for that kind of "ILI" is obviously Honoré de Balzac, and I am very different from him.

Jonathan is also more diplomatic and positive than I and Niffweed are. I really like the way Subterranean describes it as "a vibe of mysticism + quite a dark seriousness", especially "a dark seriousness" which is very well put. I also think that Snegledmaca and I are more similar than he is willing to admit.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Jonathan seem to be better at explaining his ideas than I am, and in that sense he is more similar to Expat. If that indicates strong or not I leave for others to determine.

I agree with you there :wink: . Don't know about the INTp profile bit.

[Expat]

I also think that Snegledmaca and I are more similar than he is willing to admit.

Do you mean that you think he's INTp? If so, he's going out of his way to make everyone think he hasn't got Fi in his super-id.

[Phaedrus]

I also think that Snegledmaca and I are more similar than he is willing to admit.

Do you mean that you think he's INTp? If so, he's going out of his way to make everyone think he hasn't got Fi in his super-id.

I mean that when he describes himself and what he identifies with he seems to be more INTp than INFp. And he seems to be convinced that he is a 5w4 -- more convinced of 5w4 than INFp. And you already know what I think about being an INFp and a 5w4; I think that he can be one of those -- but not both at the same time.

It would be very interesting to hear what differences and similarities you might see between us. I'm not sure of Snegledmaca's type by any means, only quite convinced that he is probably slightly mistaken about himself, one way or the other.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

If snegledmaca is a INFp, I'm pretty certain he must be subtype to be similar (in what I call 'mood', whatever that means) to Phaedrus, who by that same logic must also be subtype. When I read their posts, it seems real dull and 'mystifying', it seems their posts are obfuscated - sometimes they are too efficient (in my eyes) and miss out a phrase that would make their meaning more clear, sometimes they explain things in five sentences that could be explained in one, making their posts more complcated than they probably are. (INTj posts may seemm similar - maybe find INTj posts boring, unclear, overlydramatic etc. :wink: .). The types (though not so much Jonathan; he does seem more positivist than most other INTps) seem to be reading from some lengthy tome and droning on and on, making me wish to bang my head against the wall. (Though I have a certain respect for them).

(P.S. No offence ).

[Logos]

I definitely agree with Subterranean that Gilligan comes across as a version of FDG. That is exactly what I have thought myself. Jonathan seem to be better at explaining his ideas than I am, and in that sense he is more similar to Expat. If that indicates strong or not I leave for others to determine. But I am very dissatisfied with almost every socionic type description of the logical "business-minded" type of INTp. The prototype for that kind of "ILI" is obviously Honoré de Balzac, and I am very different from him.

Jonathan is also more diplomatic and positive than I and Niffweed are. I really like the way Subterranean describes it as "a vibe of mysticism + quite a dark seriousness", especially "a dark seriousness" which is very well put. I also think that Snegledmaca and I are more similar than he is willing to admit.

Then what about finding ideal or modular figures to represent sub-types along an <-> Axis?

[Expat]

I remember that when snegledmaca first joined the forum, he wrote a very detailed description of how he saw the world and people. It was so totally alien to me that I thought he must be an ISFp, until it became clearer that he was more likely INFp. Although you haven't written that kind of description, I don't get the feeling that I'd find your mindset that alien, if you did.

I don't see you two as that similar. Despite what most, or even many, people think, I see a stronger Ti>Te preference in him than in you. Even if - for the sake of argument - you were a Ti>Te type, you obviously value Te a lot, much more than he does, that is my impression.

Let us take a look in dichotomies for a while. In the forum you are clearly obstinate and construct-creating. I can't see any clear such dichotomies in snegledmaca. That would make perfect sense if he's extreme Ni IP since the only clear, non-blurred dichotomies would be Victim, Resolute, Calculating and Tactics, which are not easily seen in writing. If you are more like Te IP, then you are well in the obstinate-constructivist region.

As to the question of how an INFp could be a 5w4. Well, as I already said elsewhere, I think that Enneagram 5 types don't really exist in reality, not the way they are described in their entirety. It's a Frankenstein's monster of INTj and INTp. Still, I would agree that an INFp should not identify so strongly with all the aspects of 5. 5 implies a extreme preference for accumulating information Te over social contacts Fe, which is one of the INTp aspects that I think snegledmaca should identify with only partly; I think that what he sees in himself there is not an extreme Te>Fe but a total lack of interest in Fi.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Logos - I might have, er... 'accidently forgot to put you on my crappy chart - but if you're interested, I would probably have put between UDP and science as magic. I would have put labcoat between tcadilllg and science as magic (I think).

What proximity do other people see compared to other people of their (alleged) type (and mirror, if that applies)?

[Logos]

I think that Enneagram 5 types don't really exist in reality, not the way they are described in their entirety. It's a Frankenstein's monster of INTj and INTp.

That may simply because on a superficial level, society views the INTx as essentially the same sort of person. The Enneagram seems to have a similar sense of societal superficiality in its type construction as MBTI. While it may have some legitimate ideas, the ideological construction is less to be desired and appears to be in the same vein as horoscopes.

[Expat]

That may simply because on a superficial level, society views the INTx as essentially the same sort of person. The Enneagram seems to have a similar sense of societal superficiality in its type construction as MBTI. While it may have some legitimate ideas, the ideological construction is less to be desired and appears to be in the same vein as horoscopes.

I disagree. As I have said in my own Enneagram thread, I think that the Enneagram got a few things - and a few types - extremely right in their basic motivations. I think 5 is one of the few major flaws.

If you read, say, a detailed description of Enneagram 7, you will see an in-depth description of the motivations of EP temperament types. The Enneagram does have a bit of "mystic, new-wave" to it but its type construction has nothing to do with astrology.

[Gilly]

That may simply because on a superficial level, society views the INTx as essentially the same sort of person.

Only socially, I would say.

[Logos]

That may simply because on a superficial level, society views the INTx as essentially the same sort of person.

Only socially, I would say.

Precisely. The Enneagram has a very social component and perspective of types that is similar to MBTI.

That may simply because on a superficial level, society views the INTx as essentially the same sort of person. The Enneagram seems to have a similar sense of societal superficiality in its type construction as MBTI. While it may have some legitimate ideas, the ideological construction is less to be desired and appears to be in the same vein as horoscopes.

I disagree. As I have said in my own Enneagram thread, I think that the Enneagram got a few things - and a few types - extremely right in their basic motivations. I think 5 is one of the few major flaws.

If you read, say, a detailed description of Enneagram 7, you will see an in-depth description of the motivations of EP temperament types. The Enneagram does have a bit of "mystic, new-wave" to it but its type construction has nothing to do with astrology.

Yes, but it would not be hard to find someone from MBTI who would argue the validity of the Enneagram through the usage of MBTI's typing and functionality system. It is also highly probable that the Enneagram has already been to other systems as well, such as astrological signs, Hollywood Kabbalah, and the Chinese Zodiac. If there are such internal flaws within the theory of the Enneagram, the entirety of it must be reexamined from the bottom-up.

[Expat]

Yes, but it would not be hard to find someone from MBTI who would argue the validity of the Enneagram through the usage of MBTI's typing and functionality system. It is also highly probable that the Enneagram has already been to other systems as well, such as astrological signs, Hollywood Kabbalah, and the Chinese Zodiac. If there are such internal flaws within the theory of the Enneagram, the entirety of it must be reexamined from the bottom-up.

I'm not concerned with how MBTI people would argue the validity of the Enneagram, nor am I concerned with the internal, entire consistency of the Enneagram as a logical system. And, again, if you compare it with Kabbala etc you're missing the point.

I am concerned with understanding real people as evidenced from observations. In my opinion and experience, Socionics reflects reality correctly if not perfectly; the 16 Socionics types (which might as well be 50 or whatever) do reflect real people; they all "exist" as described, even if not everyone fits into one of them equally easily - which is the need for subtypes etc.

I think that the 9 Enneagram types, too, mostly reflect real people, like Socionics. However, it did a worse job overall, so it created at least one type that doesn't really exist - 5 - and lumped together rather different people in one type - 7. However, even if overall a less accurate system than Socionics, in the case of a few types it does provide an extra insight, from another angle, that helps to understand the Socionics' types's motivations better.

I do not reject the Enneagram as a whole simply because IMO it's flawed. I use the information that I find useful and accurate.

[Phaedrus]

If snegledmaca is a INFp, I'm pretty certain he must be subtype to be similar (in what I call 'mood', whatever that means) to Phaedrus, who by that same logic must also be subtype.

You are probably right about that. I forgot to mention that snegledmaca has said that he thinks that he is an INTP in MBTT.

When I read their posts, it seems real dull and 'mystifying', it seems their posts are obfuscated - sometimes they are too efficient (in my eyes) and miss out a phrase that would make their meaning more clear, sometimes they explain things in five sentences that could be explained in one, making their posts more complcated than they probably are.

This is actually very good observation. I think that you are absolutely right about what you say here.

(INTj posts may seemm similar - maybe find INTj posts boring, unclear, overlydramatic etc. :wink: .).

I often find them either too technical and/or too short. INTjs often don't define or explain their key terms, and they don't give too many examples that would illustrate their abstractions. I would prefer to be able to understand what you are talking about without having to learn the whole system/theory beforehand.

The types (though not so much Jonathan; he does seem more positivist than most other INTps) seem to be reading from some lengthy tome and droning on and on

That is also a very good observation. I agree with that.

(P.S. No offence ).

Of course not. I am extremely interested in honest and accurate observations like the ones you have described. They are very good sources of information.

I remember that when snegledmaca first joined the forum, he wrote a very detailed description of how he saw the world and people. It was so totally alien to me that I thought he must be an ISFp, until it became clearer that he was more likely INFp. Although you haven't written that kind of description, I don't get the feeling that I'd find your mindset that alien, if you did.

If we look at snegledmaca's first posts on this forum he comes across as an INFp, or at least an introverted irrational ethical type. (Even though he and others initially thought that he was an ISFp, he showed many signs of from the start.) But later that image of him changed, and in many of his posts he shows more and more INTp traits. I can see him as an INFp, but the picture is shattered. Whatever his true type is, he and I have some clear similarities. He is more confident in trusting his intuition when he acts, and in that respect he is more similar to an INFp friend of mine. But on the other hand snegledmaca seems to be more similar to me in his general interests and other attitudes. We both identify with INTP and 5w4 (but in his first posts he seemed more like a 4w5 to me).

Even if - for the sake of argument - you were a Ti>Te type, you obviously value Te a lot, much more than he does, that is my impression.

Correct.

Let us take a look in dichotomies for a while. In the forum you are clearly obstinate and construct-creating.

Correct again.

Still, I would agree that an INFp should not identify so strongly with all the aspects of 5. 5 implies a extreme preference for accumulating information Te over social contacts Fe, which is one of the INTp aspects that I think snegledmaca should identify with only partly; I think that what he sees in himself there is not an extreme Te>Fe but a total lack of interest in Fi.

If snegledmaca really is an INFp, I still think that he is a 4w5, but that is not a big deal to me. Maybe he could be a 5w4 in a sense anyway, especially if you are right about the Enneagram types.

But if he is an INFp he can't be an INTP in MBTT in my opinion. That he identifies with INTP is comprehensible in light of his similarities with me. Every INTP type description in MBTT is describing a type that is almost completely without the "business" qualities that are found in socionic ILI descriptions and are usually most accentuated in descriptions of the logical subtype of ILI. Since I strongly identify with INTP it is easier for me to identify with descriptions of the intuitive subtype of ILI, and for example a couple of Russians socionists have said to me that they find very much in Paul James's INTP description at www.intp.org. Such considerations have led me to believe that the INTP type in MBTT is much closer to the intuitive subtype of ILI than to the logical subtype. If that is wrong I don't understand why yet.

[aestrivex]

does not an ILI make. in fact, can just as easily an LII make.

[Phaedrus]

does not an ILI make. in fact, can just as easily an LII make.

But according to those Russian socionists there is almost no in Paul James's INTP description -- and I am inclined to agree with them.

[aestrivex]

i think the description is highly Ni in nature, but there are portions of it which seem to support TiNe more than the Ni factor.

the very first paragraph contains numerous Ti elements:

The INTP is above all a thinker and his inner (private) world is a place governed by a strong sense of logical structure. Every experience is to be rigorously analysed, the task of the INTP's mind is to fit each encountered idea or experience into a larger structure defined by logic. tell me thats not Ti For here is the central goal of the INTP: to understand and seek truth. The experience of anything takes a back seat. ( ) The INTP is not interested in experiences themselves but is far more fascinated by concepts. ( ) The drive to understand things that are not yet understood is a very powerful force in the life of an INTP. Where the Ti preference is strong, this drive can override the experiential element so strongly that the INTP will become quickly bored with anything that he has successfully analysed to the point of understanding it. This is not Ni. Ni finds concepts and rehashes them over and over. Consider the commonly used Ni descriptor of constantly building on to the same image. Once understood, it has nothing left to offer, once the satisfaction which comes with achieving the goal of understanding diminishes. see above Indeed, most primary interests of an INTP are things which he cannot fully understand, usually because they are highly complex or have some exotic, mystical element that does not yield to analysis. clearly Ni This is the real reason why INTPs are drawn to complexity: anything simple is too quickly understood and cannot hold the fascination for long. (again, ) Similarly, proficiency in any area (which requires continual practice after understanding) is not such a driving force as it might be for NTJs, for example. While a judging NT will often seek to become master of his field, an INTP is satisfied by analysing it alone. (Ti>Te)

i could go on but i don't feel like doing so. unfortunately, this slight example is probably insufficient to show you that you are wrong. this description is neither pure NiTe or TiNe, but rather a mixture of both. however, if i had to pick one, it fits TiNe better.

[snegledmaca]

I didn't even notice this thread.

I base my IEI type on inter type relationships. I don't base my type the least bit on functional analysis or temperament or dichotomies or anything other. IMO these things are all too easy to manipulate, I don't trust them. Plus they give me no clear result. Meeting several people who I later typed as IEI and experiencing an identity relationship with them was the thing that brought me to socionics and made me doubt my original MBTI type. You can't fake that. I still identify with INTP for my personality, quite frankly other then ENTP I can't see any other possibility in MBTT.
And like phaedrus mentions, I do identify more with the E5 then with being IEI and there is no chance in hell I'm E4. If anything E7, but E4 is the anti thesis of who I am. To be controlled by emotions is unthinkable to me and frankly the though alone scares me. I have a firm grasp on my feelings and I can't see it any other way.

Regarding my subtype, I'm whatever subtype and type maze and scarlettlux are. Those two are what I'm like IRL. Here I like to come to think. Also the fact that it takes me a really long time to write posts most likely contributes to me appearing ILI-sh, by the time I finish I usually weed out anything even remotely resembling or .

[implied]

But I am very dissatisfied with almost every socionic type description of the logical "business-minded" type of INTp.

i can agree with this.

[Phaedrus]

I base my IEI type on inter type relationships. I don't base my type the least bit on functional analysis or temperament or dichotomies or anything other. IMO these things are all too easy to manipulate, I don't trust them. Plus they give me no clear result. Meeting several people who I later typed as IEI and experiencing an identity relationship with them was the thing that brought me to socionics and made me doubt my original MBTI type. You can't fake that. I still identify with INTP for my personality, quite frankly other then ENTP I can't see any other possibility in MBTT.

It is impossible to type anyone correctly based only on intertype relationsships. Why? Because you have to identify at least some of the types by other means, otherwise you don't have any reference points. One has to get suspicious here and ask how you were able to type those who you "later typed as IEI". A sense of identity is of course totally inadequate if you don't know the true nature of the object (person) you are comparing yourself with.

So, even if you are unable to type yourself from type descriptions, temperament descriptions, functional analyses, Reinin dichotomies, V.I. etc., you have to type other people by some of those means. If you are right about what you say about your own typing process, you are not a trustworthy witness of your own type, because you haven't analysed it through. Your type is indeterminate in the sense that it is based on too little information. You can't single out just one aspect of typing (the intertype relations) and dismiss all other aspects as irrelevant. Almost every piece must fit before you can say anything definite about your type.

And like phaedrus mentions, I do identify more with the E5 then with being IEI and there is no chance in hell I'm E4. If anything E7, but E4 is the anti thesis of who I am.

That is extremely strange, because if E4 is the antithesis of who you are, it is almost impossible to imagine that you can be an IEI.

To be controlled by emotions is unthinkable to me and frankly the thought alone scares me. I have a firm grasp on my feelings and I can't see it any other way.

More than one type can feel that way, but it is perhaps most typical of ILIs.

In the Temperament Test thread you said:

I too always test as a NT type in MBTI, or more precisely xNTP, but I'm definitely an IEI.

You also got the exact same ranking between the four temperament groups as I did. In your case such a test, or Keirsey's Temperament Sorter, is very helpful. Together with everything else we know about your type it can determine your type quite accurately. Why? Because it is extremely likely that you are an IP, and it is very likely that you are an INXp. If you consistently test as an xNTP, identify with E5, have typical NT interests and attitudes, and so on, that strongly suggests that you are an NT type. On at least one test you test as a member of Keirsey's Rational temperament group, which is the same group of people as the socionic NT club.

The final test for you is to compare the descriptions of those groups. If you strongly identify more with Keirsey's Rationals than with his Idealists, then that's it. You cannot be an IEI in that case. You simply must be some other type than IEI if that is true, and everything would suggest ILI. Such a scenario would also be the final proof that you have made a mistake in your analysis of the intertype relations. But of course, it is still possible that you identify with the NF Idealist group, and if so, you can be an IEI. Otherwise not.

[snegledmaca]

I base my IEI type on inter type relationships. I don't base my type the least bit on functional analysis or temperament or dichotomies or anything other. IMO these things are all too easy to manipulate, I don't trust them. Plus they give me no clear result. Meeting several people who I later typed as IEI and experiencing an identity relationship with them was the thing that brought me to socionics and made me doubt my original MBTI type. You can't fake that. I still identify with INTP for my personality, quite frankly other then ENTP I can't see any other possibility in MBTT.

It is impossible to type anyone correctly based only on intertype relationsships. Why? Because you have to identify at least some of the types by other means, otherwise you don't have any reference points. One has to get suspicious here and ask how you were able to type those who you "later typed as IEI". A sense of identity is of course totally inadequate if you don't know the true nature of the object (person) you are comparing yourself with.

So, even if you are unable to type yourself from type descriptions, temperament descriptions, functional analyses, Reinin dichotomies, V.I. etc., you have to type other people by some of those means. If you are right about what you say about your own typing process, you are not a trustworthy witness of your own type, because you haven't analysed it through. Your type is indeterminate in the sense that it is based on too little information. You can't single out just one aspect of typing (the intertype relations) and dismiss all other aspects as irrelevant. Almost every piece must fit before you can say anything definite about your type.

I never said I used only intertype relationships to type, I just said I used them to type myself. Read more carefully. I did use other tools to determine other people's types, much like you mention, you have to start somewhere, that is, have a reference point.

With the two people I recognized as my identicals, one was a victim and a type and the other was a type as well. Neither had the Ej temperament. I also have an activity relationship with a logical type.

And like phaedrus mentions, I do identify more with the E5 then with being IEI and there is no chance in hell I'm E4. If anything E7, but E4 is the anti thesis of who I am.

That is extremely strange, because if E4 is the antithesis of who you are, it is almost impossible to imagine that you can be an IEI.

You do realize that information ≠ person. IEI is nothing more then a three letter acronym for this

and that is an information exchange model. Enneagram deals with core motivations, NOT information exchange. Once you realize that the barriers between E and socionics disappear. Think of me as working with the tools I've got, my core motivations are those of an E5 but my tools are sympathy, empathy and daydreaming.

To be controlled by emotions is unthinkable to me and frankly the thought alone scares me. I have a firm grasp on my feelings and I can't see it any other way.

More than one type can feel that way, but it is perhaps most typical of ILIs.

In the Temperament Test thread you said:

I too always test as a NT type in MBTI, or more precisely xNTP, but I'm definitely an IEI.

You also got the exact same ranking between the four temperament groups as I did. In your case such a test, or Keirsey's Temperament Sorter, is very helpful. Together with everything else we know about your type it can determine your type quite accurately. Why? Because it is extremely likely that you are an IP, and it is very likely that you are an INXp. If you consistently test as an xNTP, identify with E5, have typical NT interests and attitudes, and so on, that strongly suggests that you are an NT type. On at least one test you test as a member of Keirsey's Rational temperament group, which is the same group of people as the socionic NT club.

Actually, that was the very reason I dropped MBTT. All the things you mention were true, I was suppose to be INTP but reading the functions Ti descriptions sounded like an alien wrote them. One thing I was confident in MBTT, even from very early on, was that I have a strong Fe. (I understood Fe in MBTT to mean a strong awareness and an ability to manipulate emotions in myself and in others)

The final test for you is to compare the descriptions of those groups. If you strongly identify more with Keirsey's Rationals than with his Idealists, then that's it. You cannot be an IEI in that case. You simply must be some other type than IEI if that is true, and everything would suggest ILI. Such a scenario would also be the final proof that you have made a mistake in your analysis of the intertype relations. But of course, it is still possible that you identify with the NF Idealist group, and if so, you can be an IEI. Otherwise not.

I identify with the artisan group, the SP-s. But if I had to say I'd say I am, as oppose to what I identify with, the rational temperament. Idealist is something I'm definitely not. I'm not a humanitarian.

[Phaedrus]

Whatever your true type really is, you are an interesting object to analyse, snegledmaca. (If you strongly object to being seen as an object, that would suggest that you are an ethical type. If you are an ILI, you probably wouldn't mind, but in any case you shouldn't take it personally.)

I was suppose to be INTP but reading the functions Ti descriptions sounded like an alien wrote them.

I strongly advice people not to take any notice of function analyses in MBTT. To determine which type you are in MBTT I think you have to focus solely on how the behaviours of the types are described. That can include attitudes and thinking processes but every theoretical, functional explanation of such behaviours should be completely ignored.

One thing I was confident in MBTT, even from very early on, was that I have a strong Fe. (I understood Fe in MBTT to mean a strong awareness and an ability to manipulate emotions in myself and in others)

Okay. But then I don't understand how you can identify with INTP. It seems as though you ignore some very important aspects of that type. Strong Fe is not compatible with being an INTP.

I identify with the artisan group, the SP-s.

Very strange ... I know that you thought that you were an ISFp first, but your answers to test questions completely contradict what you say here. How can you get the lowest score on Artisan if you identify with the description of that group? It doesn't make sense. The only possible explanation I can see is that you have at least two contradicting views on yourself. Which of those contradicting versions is the correct one, is very hard to tell for me and others, because we don't know which information is trustworthy. Of course you realize that it is logically impossible that everything you say about yourself is true?

But if I had to say I'd say I am, as oppose to what I identify with, the rational temperament. Idealist is something I'm definitely not. I'm not a humanitarian.

Even more mystifiying. I honestly don't know what to think here. If you don't identify with the Idealist temperament and the socionic NF club at all, then I can't see how you can be an IEI. It is a contradiction.

This reminds me of something Ganin says in one of his articles:

So if after all this you are still not sure whether you are INTj or INTp, maybe you are neither...

You are still an enigma, snegledmaca. One general pattern I have observed is that ENTps tend to identify more with the Artisan temperament than with the Guardian temperament, and ENTps quite often test as INTPs and identify with INTP type descriptions, and some of them even think that they might be 5s, something others also think of some of them, for example Albert Einstein ... so, maybe you are an ENTp? (If I remember correctly you and/or others saw some similarities between you and Einstein in the light of tcaudillg's crosstype theory.)

The truth is out there somewhere, but it is still well hidden ...

[FDG]

Phaedrus christ fuck let him be the type he wants to be. If it was IRL now you'd have gotten a punch in the face by being so freakishly fastidious.