Type Me!

[Chakram]

It would be easier if you answered all the questions instead of saying that you hate them etc. It helps give us a more complete view of how you think and come to conclusions.

Overall, I think you could be Delta, NF > ST. You seem to have a focus on people, relations, values (Fi), consistent values and disliking people that change their own values frequently (IJ > EP ; In my view at least). Dislike of Se; wishing to be more of a behind the scenes influence instead of out making things happen.

Have you looked at EII at all?

[FarDraft]

It would be easier if you answered all the questions instead of saying that you hate them etc. It helps give us a more complete view of how you think and come to conclusions.

Overall, I think you could be Delta, NF > ST. You seem to have a focus on people, relations, values (Fi), consistent values and disliking people that change their own values frequently (IJ > EP ; In my view at least). Dislike of Se; wishing to be more of a behind the scenes influence instead of out making things happen.

Have you looked at EII at all?

I was thinking IEE > EII because of things said about details. Gulenko describes the EII as "Meticulous, demonstrates attentiveness in dealing with details"
and that an EII "Becomes bogged down by the details of her work, thus often overworking herself." He writes for the IEE, "Doing meticulous, detailed work is not for him. For him, it is difficult to follow schedules and timetables. He doesn't take well to strict discipline, has little respect the formal subordination" and "He often doesn't go into the details but will instead grasp the general meaning. Due to this, he doesn't always listen to another person to the very end before coming to a conclusion and voicing his advice, which results in others feeling misunderstood" and "However, it is because the IEE does not bother with deep study of details that he or she can easily explore new areas of knowledge, grasping all that is the most interesting in a given sphere."

Does this fit @BenGen ?

[Chakram]

I was thinking IEE > EII because of things said about details. Gulenko describes the EII as "Meticulous, demonstrates attentiveness in dealing with details"
and that an EII "Becomes bogged down by the details of her work, thus often overworking herself." He writes for the IEE, "Doing meticulous, detailed work is not for him. For him, it is difficult to follow schedules and timetables. He doesn't take well to strict discipline, has little respect the formal subordination" and "He often doesn't go into the details but will instead grasp the general meaning. Due to this, he doesn't always listen to another person to the very end before coming to a conclusion and voicing his advice, which results in others feeling misunderstood" and "However, it is because the IEE does not bother with deep study of details that he or she can easily explore new areas of knowledge, grasping all that is the most interesting in a given sphere."

Does this fit @BenGen ?

IEE is definitely on the table, I had been thinking of that as a possibility for a little while. I don't type based off of descriptions like this, I look for Information Elements and perceived strengths of each one and sort accordingly, along with overall quadra values and the like.

While IEE isn't ruled out necessarily, if this were an IEE I would expect much more Ne generating of ideas and more complete (too complete) answers. Etc.

[FarDraft]

IEE is definitely on the table, I had been thinking of that as a possibility for a little while. I don't type based off of descriptions like this, I look for Information Elements and perceived strengths of each one and sort accordingly, along with overall quadra values and the like.

While IEE isn't ruled out necessarily, if this were an IEE I would expect much more Ne generating of ideas and more complete (too complete) answers. Etc.

I was thinking that the op's comments on details points towards Ni ignoring rather than demonstrative. I generally only use the descriptions if there's a clear connection to information elements, which there usually is. I try not to look to hard into it so that I don't create meaning where there is non. Random behavioural traits are almost always useless for typing unless there are enough of them that correlate.

[DEFUNCT]

I was thinking IEE > EII because of things said about details. Gulenko describes the EII as "Meticulous, demonstrates attentiveness in dealing with details"
and that an EII "Becomes bogged down by the details of her work, thus often overworking herself." He writes for the IEE, "Doing meticulous, detailed work is not for him. For him, it is difficult to follow schedules and timetables. He doesn't take well to strict discipline, has little respect the formal subordination" and "He often doesn't go into the details but will instead grasp the general meaning. Due to this, he doesn't always listen to another person to the very end before coming to a conclusion and voicing his advice, which results in others feeling misunderstood" and "However, it is because the IEE does not bother with deep study of details that he or she can easily explore new areas of knowledge, grasping all that is the most interesting in a given sphere."

Does this fit @BenGen ?

In some ways, this fits, but I am not sure, because I do value some structure just not a lot of detail.

[Desert Financial]

It would be easier if you answered all the questions instead of saying that you hate them etc.

Saying that you hate a question points toward personality traits, so you're not looking at the questionnaire objectively or from enough angles.

[Chakram]

Saying that you hate a question points toward personality traits, so you're not looking at the questionnaire objectively or from enough angles.

Wow, I never would have thought of that without your amazing insight.

It doesn't matter if saying "I don't like this kind of question" points to favoring an IE or not, more information and fleshing out WHY you don't like that sort of question (and still answering it after) would still generate more useful information. OP did this for some questions and not for others, and it would be helpful if they did it for the rest.

[Desert Financial]

Wow, I never would have thought of that without your amazing insight.

You're welcome.

[DEFUNCT]

Wow, I never would have thought of that without your amazing insight.

It doesn't matter if saying "I don't like this kind of question" points to favoring an IE or not, more information and fleshing out WHY you don't like that sort of question (and still answering it after) would still generate more useful information. OP did this for some questions and not for others, and it would be helpful if they did it for the rest.

Well, which ones would you like further clarification on?

[Chakram]

Well, which ones would you like further clarification on?

What is the purpose of life? What do you find personally meaningful in life?

[DEFUNCT]

What is the purpose of life? What do you find personally meaningful in life?

I think the first question is a trite philosophical question, but I value pursuing going beyond myself and making an impact.

[Chakram]

I think the first question is a trite philosophical question, but I value pursuing going beyond myself and making an impact.

What sort of impact? How do you plan on going about doing this?