Busy weekend. I'll get back to this later. I wonder if those smilingeyes graphical dichotomy charts are still somewhere. Current type ranking...
ENTp > INTp > ENFp > INFp > other types
Busy weekend. I'll get back to this later. I wonder if those smilingeyes graphical dichotomy charts are still somewhere. Current type ranking...
ENTp > INTp > ENFp > INFp > other types
Originally Posted by XoX
Fi group behavior:
Fe group behavior:
Precisely what you have written elsewhere about your interactions with your friends.
Negativist-Narrator behavior: "No this is still missing, not this can't be right because this bit doesn't fit".- definition of Negativist-Positivist dichotomy
- definition of Narrator-Taciturn dichotomy
Positivist-Taciturn behavior: "How can I get it right? What do I have to do? This is the information - now tell me how to get things right".
Does that sound familiar?
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Is that the reason? Then you haven't really understood the types and you are relying on some bad descriptions.
That's an usual way to describe
So that is a reason for you to identify with INFp. And maybe you should look beyond some words like "romantic" in trying to understand the type.
Just a moment about this. I think it needs correction. Let's quote smilingeyes, dichotomical description of types, and let's remember that INFps are positivists, so warnings from them are less likely than directive, positive statements:That's an usual way to describe
This means that Acc-Se could be seen as "wandering" casually in the world doing things without any purpose, and Acc-Ni provides the direction.Dual: Acc-Se supports Acc-Ni by taking up challenges and targets that Acc-Ni suggests are worthwhile.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Ok, good point. But still, INFps as well as INTps "move back and forth" between Negativist-Narrator and Positivist-Taciturn, and if XoX is INFp he would be Ni subtype, so anyway it's not a good reason on its own to prefer ENFj to INFp. Actually if that's the only or main reason for him to think of ENFj, I think he might as well drop it.
actually i remember discussing his type with him in a previous thread and my conclusion was ENFj. The fact that his type has still not been figured out after all this time says something about his type. I think we would have typed him as INFp by now if he was INFp - certain types i.e. INFp, INFj, ESTp are very distinctive, by this I mean that when a person of this type reads the description of their type there tends to be an almost immediate realization. ENFj, on the other hand, is one of those types that is, at first, much more difficult to discern. I know this from experience, my roomate is ENFj n-subtype and he has the tendency, when I show him type descriptions, to be like "yah I see how I can relate to that one, or that one, or that one..." etc. It's not without reason that ENFj's are labelled as the "Actor" in many descriptions.
Furthermore there remains a prevalency of reliance upon "functions" to determine one's type. We ask a confused forum member, "What function do you use?" Do none of you not find this kind of funny and self-defeating?
a) as someone that's been immersed in socionics for a while (over a year) I've only really recently came to be able to discern how the functions translate into reality - if someone asked me to define my type by functions when I first got into socionics I would likely end up frustrated and crying in fetal position in the dark corner over there *points*
b) Functions do not work "by themselves" -they are reliant on each other. Instead of asking XoX if he uses Ni, of Fe etc., it would be wise to combine the functions, because that's usually how they're viewable in reality, and then ask him. I.e. If he's INFp then he uses Ni + Fe. What does this mean? This means that that introverted intuitions is directed towards extroverted ethics. This translates into meaning that the INFp is focused on his/her relations with other people (Fe) throughout the course of time - long-term (Ni). Thus the INFp is not one to immediately disclose personal information about themselves, nor are they immediately to become "best friends" with someone. The process of making friends is rather achieved more slowly, as is sharing personal information. The INFp therefore shows an aptitude towards maintaining friendships over years and years. i.e. I have friends that live in different cities, go to different schools, I might see them once a year if at all, but I'm confident that we will remains friends for years to come. Indeed I just recently saw a friend that I hadn't seen for 2 1/2 years. It wasn't a surprise, we had simply been geographically separated. I knew before hand that we would meet again when the time was right, and we did.
Do you see what I'm talking about? Do you see how, in regards to relations over time, I appear so confident? This is because relations over time represent my use of Ni + Fe, my strong functions, I know I'm good with these and so I don't doubt my ability to naturally harness the benefits that these functions offer me.
Anyways I hope that made sense. Really we need a new approach to typing people, IMO the whole "individual function" typing is a farce that's hurting us more than helping. If a person can't figure out their type than it is ridiculous to assume that they understand the functions so well that they can individually discern each function and how they use it in their daily life. Thus we need to get into the habit of combining them when typing. If someone could give XoX a description of how Fe + Ni relate to the ENFj that would probably help alot. I know many people might confuse INFp and ENFj because they share primary functions but in reverse (INFp = Ni + Fe, ENFj = Fe + Ni), but as an INFp I can tell you with confidence that in real life these two types translate into VERY different people, the way they dress, the way they debate, the way approach and retreat from the world etc.
anyways I need an update, what types have we narrowed XoX down to so far?
Also to XoX, tell me what types you are leaning towards. (i.e. a simple list, INFp, ENFj, INTp etc.)? Then tell me why you've been led to believe that you COULD be one of those types. This is important because others who've been in your position may be able to help. Also I think I can help narrow it down a lot through simple questions that are subtley related to socionics that won't confuse you further. Do not use ANY symbols of functions in these explanations. instead use the behaviours that you believe are attributed to each type. i.e. instead of saying "I use Fe" you would say "I often influence the mood of others, when a person seems depressed or down I am confident in my ability to help them them feel better"
INFp-Ni
But then why don't you change that view of yours, since it is false? If you see XoX and me as identicals, you should conclude that we are both INTps. As an INTp you should take all the evidence into consideration, something you haven't done in this case.I see you both as INFp, so it is all very convenient that you feel similar to each other.
Rofl, I object to that! My patters are very pretty! And honestly I had no idea I came across that way. It's definitely a "problem" I have IRL, all talk and very little meaning, people constantly tell me I do this, immerse myself in "philosophizing" and completely lose sight of reality. I never notice it (Until they give me the look).You're very hung up on patterns. You remind me very much of Snegled, actually. All numbers and patterns and very little meaning (no offense, patterns are certainly pretty).I have a feeling this thread will lead to yet another confusion as people don't seem to share anything in their perception of me
Now your list doesn't seem to follow any definite pattern:
The order of Quadra likelihood says: Alpha, Gamma, Alpha, Delta, Delta, Beta, Gamma
The order of temperament likelihood says: Ep, Ej, Ij, Ej, Ip, Ij, Ip
Leading function likelihood says: Ne, Te, Ti, Te, Si, Ti, Ni
So to me this data seems pretty much completely random and I can't get much generalized information out of it. That it is how you see me on a personal level which is good to know but not very useful in analysis.
I'd agree with you assesment, the more I look into his typings the more I see a strong Ti hidden aganda, identical to my own. But there are some things he does that feel awkward, so I'm gonna say, based on that alone, SEI.
I don't know if I told you this, but I can totally see you as my activity (Or quadra member).But then why don't you change that view of yours, since it is false? If you see XoX and me as identicals, you should conclude that we are both INTps. As an INTp you should take all the evidence into consideration, something you haven't done in this case.I see you both as INFp, so it is all very convenient that you feel similar to each other.
Analyze that feeling of yours, which you think can be an example of Activity. And remember that it is not an activity relation, because you are definitely not an ISFj, and I am definitely not an ISTj. So change your view of what a relation of activity is immediately, if you believe in what you just said.
No, I don't believe in it, I just said I can see you as my activity. I think that if I was suppose to work or interact with you IRL I would have absolutely no problems (Quite the opposite). But I suppose LSI is a long shot for you and good relations don't necessary pull quadra relations.Analyze that feeling of yours, which you think can be an example of Activity. And remember that it is not an activity relation, because you are definitely not an ISFj, and I am definitely not an ISTj. So change your view of what a relation of activity is immediately, if you believe in what you just said.
Agreed.No, I don't believe in it, I just said I can see you as my activity. I think that if I was suppose to work or interact with you IRL I would have absolutely no problems (Quite the opposite). But I suppose LSI is a long shot for you and good relations don't necessary pull quadra relations.Analyze that feeling of yours, which you think can be an example of Activity. And remember that it is not an activity relation, because you are definitely not an ISFj, and I am definitely not an ISTj. So change your view of what a relation of activity is immediately, if you believe in what you just said.
I could totally see the little idiot named phaedrus as an ISTj
See what this moron does? If somebody FEELS LIKE HIS RELATION WITH HIM IS A GIVEN RELATION, HE ORDERS PEOPLE TO CHANGE IT.
CHRIST FUCK AN ENTIRE PLATE OF GLASSES SMASHED IN YOUR FACE WITH BLOOD EVERYWHERE AFTERWARDS, THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED, IDIOT, CRETIN, MORON, HARDASS, DIE!!!!
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
You know, you're too harsh on him. I saw it simply as expressing how he sees things, his opinion (Or should I say belief). And I hope you're not calling him names cause he "ordered" me to change my opinion, cause if you are I'd urge you to take a look at your post and see exactly who's forcing their opinion on who. (But I agree that in a way he did order me to change my stance, to be in accordance with his internal wold view, which I guess is what you are really criticizing here)
Yeah, of course you can. Some people even believe that they can see elfs dancing on the meadows.
I'm not one of them.Yeah, of course you can. Some people even believe that they can see elfs dancing on the meadows.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Back to topic --
As I wrote elsewhere:
Yeah. I think this is obvious by now.@XoX: FWIW, I'm very much convinced that you're>>
.
I'm currently having some problems finding time to make a good response. I did read through everything written and ok let's say my values are Fe, Ti > Te, Fi meaning I'm Alpha or Beta. Many good arguments have been made to support that. Even though I still don't have a strong subjective sense of being Alpha or Beta the objective data seems convincing.Yeah. I think this is obvious by now.@XoX: FWIW, I'm very much convinced that you're
In practice that leaves ENTp (Intuitive Sub), INFp (Intuitive Sub), ENFj (Very Intuitive Sub).
Those types have many similarities but also some clear differences.
- All types are strong in Ne and Ni. However they should differ in their usage
* ENTp (N) clearly likes Ne over Ni
* INFp (N) clearly likes Ni over Ne
* ENFj (N) is somewhat torn between those but should still be noticeably in the Ni side
- They all have different temperaments
* EP, IP, EJ
- Their dichotomies differ but I have had no time to think how much the subtypes affect this i.e. which dichotomies are clearly distinguishable and which are blurred
- They seek different thing from their duals
* INFp and ENFj seek Ti and Se but ENTp seeks Si and Fe which is very different from the other two types. My marriage points more to Si and Fe.
- ENFj(N) and ENTp(N) should perhaps show more Se than INFp(N)
- ENTp(N) and INFp(N) should differ in that even though both show Ti and Fe in ENTp(N) the Ti should be better "established" and in INFp(N) the Fe should be better "established". ENFj(N) instead should show noticeably better
command of Fe than Ti (instead strongly seeking Ti from others).
- INFp(N) should show less Te than ENTp(N) and ENFj(N) even though none of these types generally uses it in their arguments too much
- INFp(N) should be slightly more skilled in Si than the others or at least more sensitive in that area. The subtypes however blur the role of Si a bit
- INFp(N) and ENFj(N) should be stronger in Fi even though they don't perhaps prefer its' usage generally. In ENTp(N) the Ti>Fi and Fe>Fi should be quite clear even though the subtype blurs it a bit.
Edit: As suggested I removed a part which was using other people as "measuring sticks" since we can't verify their types. At this point it is better to be careful in bringing in information which might lead as the wrong way.
So I will not make a final decision but it seems the case is strongest for ENTp(N). ENTp(N) should differ from a "balanced" ENTp in that the all the NF functions are a bit stronger and all the ST functions are a bit weaker. Also Se role should be weaker and more sensitive and Fi PoLR not as weak and sensitive but still clearly a PoLR function. For an outsider clearly weak functions should be Se, Fi and Si. Weak Se role perhaps being most clearly visible to an outsider (being quite weak AND very sensitive at the same time).
If the above is true, you are most likely an INFp, XoX. The many striking similarities between us can, perhaps, be explained by that assumption, since I have found the same kind of striking similarities between me and Snegledmaca. And if he can be an INFp, so can you probably.Yeah. I think this is obvious by now.@XoX: FWIW, I'm very much convinced that you're
The same considerations might apply to Jonathan. The similarities between him and me in attitudes and ways of thinking are even more striking, but given the premise that Snegledmaca is an INFp, which he seems to have very strong reasons to believe, many of those similarities seem to be able to exist between two different types sharing the same dominant function. So, my initial assumption that such similarities inevitably must indicate type identity could be false.
Personally, as always, I'd suggest giving only secondary weight to such perceived similarities.
Of course. But in this case they are not so much perceived as they are obvious from the things XoX has said about himself. If we would make type descriptions of XoX and me they would probably share those similarities, and they would result in us both fitting the same, or nearly same, type descriptions. If XoX is, for example, an ENFj or ENTp, he has described himself incorrectly.
It is possible that I have occasionally described myself incorrectly but that is a bit hard to verify. However, as always, I find the way Phaedrus writes very natural for me to process. It is easy to understand what he means and his way of putting it doesn't generally "bug me" (this doesn't mean that I always agree with him just that I find his argumentation style reasonable, unoffensive and easy to process). I don't know what this means though. One interpretation is that we share some or all strong functions and he doesn't hit my role or PoLR.Of course. But in this case they are not so much perceived as they are obvious from the things XoX has said about himself. If we would make type descriptions of XoX and me they would probably share those similarities, and they would result in us both fitting the same, or nearly same, type descriptions. If XoX is, for example, an ENFj or ENTp, he has described himself incorrectly.
Then generally I do seem to be less consistent in behavior. I have more "faces" and writing styles I think. Phaedrus seems to always be "Phaedrus". I'm not sure if this is what others perceive?
Yes you are probably a "sage" role (if you are familiar with the bullshit theory of life roles) so you have more inputs to deal with.It is possible that I have occasionally described myself incorrectly but that is a bit hard to verify. However, as always, I find the way Phaedrus writes very natural for me to process. It is easy to understand what he means and his way of putting it doesn't generally "bug me" (this doesn't mean that I always agree with him just that I find his argumentation style reasonable, unoffensive and easy to process). I don't know what this means though. One interpretation is that we share some or all strong functions and he doesn't hit my role or PoLR.Of course. But in this case they are not so much perceived as they are obvious from the things XoX has said about himself. If we would make type descriptions of XoX and me they would probably share those similarities, and they would result in us both fitting the same, or nearly same, type descriptions. If XoX is, for example, an ENFj or ENTp, he has described himself incorrectly.
Then generally I do seem to be less consistent in behavior. I have more "faces" and writing styles I think. Phaedrus seems to always be "Phaedrus". I'm not sure if this is what others perceive?
Remember though that fastidiousness isn't related necessarily to PoLR-hitting. I'm sure Phaddy doesn't hit my polr, but still he makes me very angry.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
If it is about this:Yes you are probably a "sage" role (if you are familiar with the bullshit theory of life roles) so you have more inputs to deal with.It is possible that I have occasionally described myself incorrectly but that is a bit hard to verify. However, as always, I find the way Phaedrus writes very natural for me to process. It is easy to understand what he means and his way of putting it doesn't generally "bug me" (this doesn't mean that I always agree with him just that I find his argumentation style reasonable, unoffensive and easy to process). I don't know what this means though. One interpretation is that we share some or all strong functions and he doesn't hit my role or PoLR.Of course. But in this case they are not so much perceived as they are obvious from the things XoX has said about himself. If we would make type descriptions of XoX and me they would probably share those similarities, and they would result in us both fitting the same, or nearly same, type descriptions. If XoX is, for example, an ENFj or ENTp, he has described himself incorrectly.
Then generally I do seem to be less consistent in behavior. I have more "faces" and writing styles I think. Phaedrus seems to always be "Phaedrus". I'm not sure if this is what others perceive?
Remember though that fastidiousness isn't related necessarily to PoLR-hitting. I'm sure Phaddy doesn't hit my polr, but still he makes me very angry.
http://www.leadingedge.net/nine_roles.htm#SAGE
then yes after quick check I think I'm likely a SAGE. For me SAGE seems like some Ni-dominant type. ENTp would likely be a VISIONARY. Or is it the other way around?
About the anger thing...I think many anger issues are not really related to other people's behavior but instead are caused by your own mind. You just project your internal anger to other people but this doesn't make the anger go away. Instead it makes it stronger.
I read the summaries of Filatova's descriptions about the shortlist of types and I still think I'm most likely an INTp despite the perceived Ti>Fi and Fe>Te preferences. Perhaps I should next read the whole descriptions carefully but if these summaries are accurate then from these types INTp description seems very accurate and the others less so. Now, where am I making a mistake here?
INTp
1. Ni – Dynamically comprehends all worldly processes. Ability to traverse the time axis permits them to see distant prospects. Skeptical and critical. When confronted by a situation they know how to select from a set of variants, oriented towards the distant prospect.
2. Te – Fitness for work is exceptionally selective. If they find an appropriate job they work without tiring, indeed are difficult to stop. Knows how to find the principal team needed to unwind a chain of events. A meticulous and scrupulous pedant, knows how to separate information within a system.
3. Fe – Tries not to act emotionally since he is not confident that he can always control his feelings. When he does lose control his behaviour towards others, and himself, is unpredictable. With close people prefers to associate at a close psychological distance, tries to be polite, to develop relations over time; however, does not always succeed for is capable of offending others without noticing.
4. Si – He feels well in a comfortable and cozy home but is unwilling to spend the necessary time and resources to create such himself and so prefers if another would take this responsibility. Sometimes difficult to mobilize himself to carry out necessary activities, appears as if paralyzed, and in such cases external interference proves useful in helping him “untwist”.
INFp
1. Ni: The dreamer and romantic, IEI is easily separated from reality, knows how to sense events, to notice their dynamics. He sees the concealed potential within people, his inner essence, is capable of proposing new ideas in areas of interest.
2. Fe: Knows how to influence the moods of others, to cause reactions deemed necessary by method of an “emotional surge”, but not by pressure, he readily manifests warmth and participation. Loves to speak about the moral problems, about the norms of behaviour, he calls those near to him to acknowledge his observations.
3. Te: His fitness for work is unpredictable as it depends exclusively on his mood. He frequently possess low energy and therefore finds it difficult to force himself to work. Organizing, systematization, hierarchy, structure… all these only serve to irritate and tire him, he doesn’t see the “living soul” in these, which is necessary to motivate him.
4. Si: He ably feels the beauty, harmony, and commensurability in the world, but badly manages practical tasks; he does not know how to efficiently spend money. Finds it difficult to manifest private venture, is always the slave, never the leader.
ENFj
1. Fe – Life for EIE is focused within the sphere of emotions, which he skillfully controls like the conductor of an orchestra. Without the surge of a periodic dramatic experience he finds himself unable to work. He attempts maintain a certain standard, in regards to his emotions, which serves to inform those around him his current condition.
2. Ni – He foresees the possible course of events and possesses a sense of fantasy and artistic taste. Wonderfully reveals the possibilities of what may have been and what never was, knows how to inspire people with fantasy and to manipulate them.
3. Si – Not confident in determining physical needs and not always capable of organizing a routine manner of living; spends money reasonably. His volitional efforts are of an unpredictable nature and their essence is directed towards the people in close proximity. He may push too hard without any definite reason.
4. Te – Finds it difficult to work on large tasks; prefers delicate, thorough, and scrupulous work. Finds it difficult to strictly follow a definite system, in such cases it is necessary to find help.
ENTp
1. Ne – Possesses an inextinguishable interest in the entirely new, which promises him with gripping prospects and possibilities. He readily puts to use any information source. He knows how to foresee the consequences of large events, possesses the gift of presentation. His mind is rich in fantasy.
2. Ti – He is capable of creating a fundamentally new theory, after conjoining its details. He is frequently the initiator of new directions in science. Is able to qualitatively and consistently execute work, to scrupulously study its components, should it fascinate him.
3. Fi – He establishes both for himself and others high standards of moral behavior. Is irreconcilable in his requirements, he does not pardon those that do not correspond. He is easily emotionally carried away by something, thus easily cooling to the previous object of interest. Is sometimes capable of victimizing others.
4. Se – He does not attempt to obtain something by force and, at the same time, will never give into another’s offense. Another’s pressure will be met with resistance. He rarely disturbs anything in regards to health and household conveniences. His financial situation leaves much to be desired, but his ingenuity is sufficient in obtaining money when necessary.
Correct. I am also a SAGE, and if you clearly prefer SAGE to MENTOR that is yet another argument for INTp rather than INFp.
You are probably not. At least not if you have carefully compared the INTp description with the INFp description and still think that you are an INTp after that. For me it is rather easy to see that I cannot be an INFp unless those descriptions are totally misleading and incorrect.
Your mistake, in my opinion, is in relying too much on descriptions rather than on what the types and functions really are like and what drives them.
For instance, look at the Te section for INTp:
This is 30% IP temperament, 30% Ti, and none about characteristic Te>Ti preference of INTps.2. Te – Fitness for work is exceptionally selective. If they find an appropriate job they work without tiring, indeed are difficult to stop. Knows how to find the principal team needed to unwind a chain of events. A meticulous and scrupulous pedant, knows how to separate information within a system.
On the INFp -- not everyone who's functionally an INFp identifies with cliches like "dreamer and romantic", although true Te types might see them as such.
@Phaedrus: I think the descriptions can be misleading if someone is not sure of what they'd be looking at, which seems to be XoX's case.
I think there are good arguments for both ENTp and INFp. They are not very similar types, in principle, but XoX seems to be strong intuitive subtype, so he has problems with the Ne/Ni preference. Both types are irrational, value Fe-Ti over Fi-Te.
XoX does seem to value Si over Se as dual-seeking, and it does look like his wife can "only" be a Si EJ. On the other hand, from his video VI, like many others, I'd have said Ni IP.
So the best way is to decide whether he's EP or IP. Overall EP seems to fit him better.
I would now say ENTp>INFp, overall, but I would not bet much on it.
Maybe. But if he is
Wouldn't it be a good idea for XoX to determine whether he is an intorvert or an extravert? There are Socionics-independent means of doing that, and he could start by reading what Jung has written about the differences in Psychological Types, especially what he writes at the end of that book in a separate chapter (if I recall it correctly; I haven't got the book in front of me), and he could also read what others have said as comments to Jung. Besides that I think you can find other sources on the Internet, even some tests, where you can rather accurately determine your overall biological inclination towards introversion or extraversion.
Is that video still available? I haven't seen it.
I agree with that, actually -- aMaybe. But if he isdominants.
Yes, and according to Socionics definitions he seems to incline more to EP temperament. I can't comment on the other methods you mentioned.
You have to ask him.
I'm slowly working on all this information. I'm slightly busy at the moment though.
I wonder if this adhoc description of preferred work mates is any useful. I don't guarantee I feel exactly the same tomorrow but at this moment this is what I blurted out:
http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...=191278#191278
Your description of preferred gives some insight into your type, but of course one has to be skeptical of the types of your work mates. How can you be sure of their types if you are not sure of your own?
This question has been raised before. And still I think it is much easier to type other people than yourself (for me). It is not hard to be objective and construct a valid model of other people but it is very hard to be objective about yourself (for me). I know some people have suggested that you can't reliably type other people if you can't reliably type yourself but personally I find this is not true at all. Typing myself is a lot harder because of the inability to perceive myself from a "bird eye view" or from an objective viewpoint. Very often I immediately have a good grasp of a person's type when we first meet. Then there are cases where it takes longer to develop a reliable perception. Quite often this is related to how many people of the same type I have met as I do need concrete data in order to get a good grasp of a type. I'm not as good with typing based purely on theory.
This said I, for example, don't have much concrete data on ENTp and ENTj but I think I can quite reliably separate the two. I can't be sure about this though. So the "ENTp" in my description might be "ENTj". But I would be surprised if it is. There are some other types which I lack experience with and typing in those cases in a bit unreliable too. The people I described in the workmates post I have quite a long interaction with so I'm quite trustful that I understand their characters. Then again I haven't had many workmates of each type so there might be personal qualities involved which I associate to their type. So as I get more work experience with those types I might somewhat change my mind on who I like and who I don't. If I could e.g. work with couple of other ENTps I might find that my bad experiences are not because I dislike ENTps work behavior in general but because I have worked with a "bad apple".
Then I don't think you are really using Socionics criteria.
Socionics is not about external traits -- it's about preferences and motivations. You should know yours better than you do someone else's.
I think that is one of the problems when it comes to typing people (including ourselves).
When typing ourselves, we notice all the little fluctuations and variety of things that we do. How we respond, what we prefer, what motives us in one situation will likely differ in other situations. I think that it is this awareness of fluctuations that makes some people have a difficult time typing themselves.
However, when dealing with other people, we don't usually get to see them in various situations and are limited to our own perceptions of the person based on one to three types of situations. Because we are limited in what aspects of them we get to see, we have fewer types/functions to choose from.
Some people are quite happy typing others based on this limited information.
Some people look for preferences, motivations, and responses that support a possibly perceived type. (looking for support in their typing attempts)
Some people look for preferences, motivations, and responses that go against a possibly perceived type. (looking for errors in their typing attempts)
(btw, while I like people who keep an open mind, even about themselves, I'm a fan of those who are relatively sure of their own typing of themselves before doing more than playing with possible ideas of another's type)
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
You can criticize all you want about whether the people I have typed are correctly typed or not. It doesn't change the fact that I have strong trust in my real life typing abilities and I do think most the people I type are typed right. Most here meaning at least 2/3. There are some people whose type is very unclear to me but I tend to not incluce those people in my posts. So when we talk about those people whose type I refer to here the hit rate is very good.Then I don't think you are really using Socionics criteria.
Socionics is not about external traits -- it's about preferences and motivations. You should know yours better than you do someone else's.
Do you know whether you are an extravert or an introvert, XoX? If you don't, why not?
Personal impression: introvert
Test results: introvert
My internal impression is that I'm very introverted and I generally do things which MBTI tests associate with introverts.
The reason I started to think about being an extrovert was because so many from this board started to suspect I might be one. There actually was a clear majority suspecting I was extrovert and explaining why MBTI introverts can be socionics extroverts. It kind of messed my head and self-perception, heh. I probably give other people a way more extroverted impression than my internal impression of myself is. Perhaps because I'm social in a way that many introverts are not. This could mean that I am an introverted ethical type like INFp? Then again I always test as T in MBTI tests. My self perception is still introvert and thinking type. Even though my behavior can seem extrovert and ethical my internal impression is not. Nor do I relate to type descriptions about extroversion of ethical behavior too much. I hope no one gets agitated even if I mentioned MBTI tests
I wrote this about how I see teams and optimal work environment in another thread:
http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...=191386#191386
This is very authentic material and reflects my true opinion. If someone knows how to use this in typing me that would be great. It is a more reliable indicator of my persona and my "likes" and "dislikes" than pretty much anything else I've written here so far.
Most people's subjective feeling about being introverted or extraverted is correct, but one of my ENTp friend was once convinced for a short while that he was an introvert, even scoring 100 % on introversion on one test occasion. I have seen it happen with
Well, you shouldn't listen to them for a minute on that. Extraversion and introversion is a biological phenomenon, and MBTT is no different from Socionics in how that phenomenon is explained or understood. You simply cannot be extraverted in one model and introverted in the other.
What you test as is less important than what you identify with. Both MBTT and Socionics identify the difference between T and F types in the same way. You have read lists of T traits and F traits in the short tests on the Internet, on Dmitri's site, on Ganin's site, and on Rick's site, so do you identify with being a T type or an F type? Or is it difficult for you to decide?
Okay, your impression is that you are a thinking type. If you have thought about it a lot and find it rather easy to determine what you think and feel that you are here, that should settle it. Then you are a thinking type. Whether you are also an introvert might be somewhat less certain for the reasons mentioned, but if you read some more material on the differences between extraversion and introversion in a biological perspective, then you should be able to determine that too.
But the important thing here is whether you identify with them at all. Is it a close call or not? For me it is very easy to determine both these things. I have always known that I am an introvert, and I have always known that I am a thinking type. Once I understood what was meant by those terms I had no reason to doubt any of it. The only dimension I have had some problems with is the J/P.
Is is possible for you to see yourself as an INFp based on your reading of the type descriptions? Don't hesitate to read MBTT's and Keirsey's type descriptions too. If you can see yourself as an INFp (or any other ethical type for that matter) in any of these models, then the issue is not settled. But if you cannot seriously imagine yourself being an ethical type after comparing the type descriptions, and if you identify with INTp in Socionics, INTP in MBTT, and INTP also in Keirsey's model, then you with near 100 % certainty are an INTp/INTP -- and it doesn't matter what people on this forum might say based on some functional analysis, because every possible such analysis is less reliable as an indication of your type than the scenario I just described.
Comments on your sig --
Currently thinking: ENTp (Intuitive Subtype)
Other types still in consideration: [s:6d5f1c8d3a]INTp (N)[/s:6d5f1c8d3a]and INFp (N)
and ENFj (N)[/s:6d5f1c8d3a]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
