sup, can you type me?

[Naktis]

With a great pain I waded through your collection of russian asmr videos. Here are my results:
(highest score - top, lowest score - bottom)

ILI
LIE
ILE
LII
EIE
EII
ESE
IEE
LSI
SEE
ESI
IEI
SLI
LSE
SEI
SLE

How does this test use Ne and not Se in your opinion? I think it uses both.

I had no problem with assessing which person is potentially cool/interesting/will not irritate me, but I don't know if I think like this every day and about every person that I meet, but sure, it happens and it's quite quick.

The correctness of the test's results is also quesionable, cause how can we be sure if people instantly have a connection with people who have "matching" sociotypes, especially if they have nothing in common with them in terms of hobbys, socio-economic background, intelligence etc.

I did AIM-to-Know test few times and every time it gave me totally diferent result. I can do it again if you are sure is will be somehow relevant.

[Sol]

With a great pain I waded through your collection of russian asmr videos.

no pain - no gain

ILI
LIE
ILE
LII

you clearly prefer TN types, more of gamma - good argument for your SF, more about SEE, ESI

EIE
EII
ESE
IEE

SEI has subrevisor close to top. mb excluded from possibe SF

SLI
LSE
SEI
SLE

Resume: your type should be among ESE, SEE, ESI
4 bottom types gave not much. except 2 at bottom fit to ESI some better

you may read types descriptions of 3 types. and to try choose by IR effects what pairs are more pleasant for you: LII/LSI, ILI/IEI, LIE/LSE

also you notice, ESI is among most possible types by this test

> How does this test use Ne and not Se in your opinion? I think it uses both.

the conscious is concentrated on _impressions_, not on objective physical traits
the 2nd most used is Fi

> how can we be sure if people instantly have a connection with people who have "matching" sociotypes

by the degree of match with the type gotten by video. the match of 2 independent methods is low accidental, while bloggers were typed by the same method/typer as you by video

> I did AIM-to-Know test few times and every time it gave me totally diferent result

the 1st result is supposed as the main

I think it will be better if I write posts with quotes for you to see the notification

notifications help
they can be also made by: @Naktis

[Naktis]

no pain - no gain

this joke from a SLI? nice

You seem to really like your test despite obvious ambiguity of results
In my case you propose ESE as an option with ILI being on top of the results, and doesnt' ESI's conflictor(or something) seem to be too high also? (((well I guess ESI's may always see ILE's as being high))). Jokes aside - I am curious how can you explain this?

I don't really like descriptions, they are usually very stereotypical, but I can try some one more time. Which ones/by which authors do you recommend?

[Sol]

this joke from a SLI? nice

1st heard it seems from SEE blogger

> You seem to really like your test despite obvious ambiguity of results

Results show that ESI is among 3 most possible types and has good chance to be true. Including by independent matching with common VI by video.

I understand your higher irrational skepsis to typologies and Ne methods due to nonvalued weak Ne. The same reason makes harder for you to understand yourself to the degree of getting much differing results in tests, even the same ones.

I hope you'll understand later the typology enough to accept your real type ESI. As on it points the most and good.
Some ESI I saw before mistyped themselves, then noticed too much of bs and then lost the interest to "not working" typology. Mb you'll be wiser and initial problems with types understanding will not avert you. Jung types are useful in choosing pairs, at least.
I was similar to you. It took me about a 1 year to type other people to understand what are Jung types on practice and to accept LSE as my type which was said to me be several typers. I also was skeptical to this type and to Socionics in general until researched it better and noticed how good it explains what I see in my life. People which I like and dislike, my style to do things, etc. Do not absulatize types - those are tendencies. Your type is only the largest tendency, so you may notice traits of other types in you too. With more experience you get the details of the typology to clearly notice that only 1 type fits you good - by traits, by IR effects. It's step by step process. Novices see a mess, where later may see a clear system. You are a novice. You even can't get stable results in tests. Could be worse. One ESI I saw typed himself stably to conflictor *sigh* by tests. NT types deal best with the typology, while for SF it's harder to understand.

best wishes

[Naktis]

1st heard it seems from SEE blogger

For some reason I thought you were types as SLI somewhere, my bad.

I understand your higher irrational skepsis to typologies and Ne methods due to nonvalued weak Ne.

First of all I don't think typologies are wrong. You regard me as a novice when I'm not one. Sure I have less knowledge than you, but I've read a lot of socionics posts and articles for about a year. I belive we can talk from a similar level, at least on some aspects of socionics, this can lead to something productive. You see, when you just give me your conclusion without showing any process behind it it's really hard to belive and it's not because of skepsis to typologies, but skepsis to your very quick confidence, show me how you work, show me some kind of deeper explenations please. How can I belive you if you don't do just a bit of that?