Video VI for Economist!

[Saoirse]

Hi everyone! I'm new to the forum, so I hope I'm following protocol/etiquette correctly. I made this video for you guys to try to type me (with MBTI and maybe also instinctual stackings)! I have a strong belief about what I am, though I am open to being convinced otherwise. I felt like I had to do this first because when I start posting, I'll want to refer to my own type and personal experiences regarding being that type, and I'd like to get as unbiased of an opinion as possible from you all before I do that.

[redacted, PM for link if interested]

Thanks and Happy Thanksgiving to the Americans out there!

edit: here’s the link again cuz @Sol doubts my EIIhood and I love attention https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F3-V3yqjsrs

[ouronis]

Alpha NT, probably LII. Energy, the way you weigh everything, your examples of global weaknesses and desires, all make me think this.

[Exodus]

I have some ideas but this isn't really enough information...it seems like you only did a few questions? Generally typing videos should be around an hour long or at least 30 minutes. It's also crucial to leave in all the rambling and stuff (assuming it's not too personal to share) -- it tells us what kinds of things you naturally focus on and talk about.

[Saoirse]

I see! The few videos I saw here seemed to be only 5-10 min, so I thought that's how long they should be. (And I didn't want to waste people's time, but I suppose you can just skip around.) Here's the full 35 minutes of rambling: [redacted, PM for link if interested].

I'm a bit embarrassed by it--when I'm talking, my thoughts aren't as structured as when I'm writing. There are also bits where I just mumble, or read a question without answering it, as I assumed I'd be cutting them out.

Thanks for the tip! Looking forward to seeing what y'all come up with.

[Exodus]

There are lots of vocabulary and themes: you enjoy "objective" stuff, working on various kinds of intellectual puzzles and figuring out how different pieces go together. The stuff you described as being boring sounded more like . However, it's somewhat difficult to see you as a Ti leading type. LII doesn't fit because of the numerous times you mentioned getting what you want (). LSI probably doesn't work either because of how you describe your strengths and weaknesses: LSIs are usually attentive to their environment and have less problems with money and asserting their interests and not being taken advantage of.

Overall it's clear that you're a Ti valuing introvert. Other introverted elements were present: making people happy (), and for listening understandingly to people's problems and giving advice; making one person happy making life worthwhile. It seems that IEI fits the best. The most telling things were what you look for in others (which wasn't in the original video ) and the desire to be "on a team" with someone else. You also mentioned having children as a way of achieving immortality

[Saoirse]

It surprises me that my video evidently shows Ti use and/or valuing. I did emphasize objectivity a lot, but primarily in the establishment of public policies, which I expected to point more toward Te valuing.

I think I am EII so/sx, but whether I am EII or IEI is an age-old debate I love revisiting every once in a while (which may point toward my being EII ). Here are some answers to more questions from your questionnaire, written instead of filmed so that I may be more organized/coherent in conveying my thoughts. It's a lot, but I would much appreciate if you gave it a skim and let me know whether it updates your belief regarding my type!

- Who do you admire, and why?

When I was younger, I greatly admired Richard Feynman for his combination of fierce intellectual curiosity (eagerness to develop deep, flexible understanding, rather than fragile understanding that only works in the precise original situation in which it was introduced--which is not really understanding at all) and unbridled, child-like enthusiasm (pursuit of mastery in many areas, including art, lock-picking, and drumming; also, despite being a scientist, he didn't take himself too seriously, and once jumped at the chance to be hypnotized). I actually haven't touched any of his work on physics--everything I know about him is from his autobiographies. I was also very struck by his story about going on a date with a deaf girl to a social event for deaf people. He approached it with such an air of open-mindedness and friendliness that I thought he must be a good person.

More recently, I have been much more interested in people who are getting important things done for society, rather than those who further knowledge for its own sake. For example, I am currently a big fan of Elon Musk. I think it's incredible that as a teenager, he decided that his goal above all else was to help humanity through technology and clearly identified 5 technologies that he thought would most affect humanity, long before most others recognized their importance/viability (the internet, sustainable energy, space colonization, AI, and genetic reengineering). Then he made a lot of money from the internet and used the money to make major headway in sustainable energy and space colonization (Tesla and SpaceX!), and he has even started work in AI. Some argue that he is not particularly intellectually brilliant--that his contributions have mainly been related to business or revamping/recombining old ideas/technology)--but I think that the depth of understanding necessary for recognizing how to repurpose old things for new uses in new contexts, as well as the ability to prioritize societal problems and leverage his own strengths to actually solve them (requiring the disruption of very old, stagnant industries such as the automobile & aerospace industries), should be recognized and valued.

As a Socionics newbie, I would say I seem to have valued Ti a lot more in my youth (up to when I graduated college) and Te a lot more since then (the 2.5 years of post-grad life I've experienced so far).

- What's been on your mind? Has anything been worrying or concerning you? What problems have you encountered lately?

More practically, I've been worried about the development of my research agenda. As I am now in the third year of my graduate program, the first year of real research, I feel lost as to how to complete my first real research project. I've heavily invested in certain mathematical/statistical techniques that I greatly enjoy intellectually, but for which I cannot find applications that feel meaningful to me. On the other hand, there are topics and questions that do feel meaningful to me, but they would require essentially changing my subfield entirely. There are many complications to doing that--not only would I have to catch up in those subfields, but I would also have to develop new relationships with those professors.

Though I haven't yet been able to find a satisfactory application of my current subfield, I do absolutely adore my current main adviser, and I am somewhat inclined to just listen to her when she says my current project is interesting. I love her because I come away from our meetings with a very clear idea of what I should do next. She provides clear instructions and deadlines, which my previous main adviser did not. And I don't think most professors do that for their advisees.

Less practically, I spent a couple weeks this semester extremely worried about the concept of superintelligent AI. When I discussed this issue with my friends, I noticed they seem to think the source of my distress was the possibility of death/unemployment due to AI. In fact, the source of my distress was that the impact of AI on humanity seems like it will be far beyond whatever impact I may make in my lifetime, so I lost sight of the purpose of my life for a while. The thought process was like, "Once AI either immortalizes us in eternal happiness or accidentally ends the human species, what will the point of anything in my life have been?" But after much introspection, I ultimately realized that while Elon Musk's purpose of preserving the human species is grand and noble, the purpose that feels most meaningful to me is trying to make society more worthy of preservation. What is the point of preserving suffering, poverty, and war? So I was again peaceful with my personal purpose of making people happier.

- What are your religious or spiritual beliefs and why do you hold them?

I am agnostic, probably because I was raised by atheistic parents. One of my best friends is Christian, and through discussions with her and other agnostics/atheists, I've come to the conclusion that as far as the beliefs themselves are concerned, no one is more or less right. There is no evidence, no way to prove that our existence is not due to some omnipotent God who really wants us to respect Him, just as there is no evidence to prove that there is no universal purpose to human life. As far as actions are concerned, science is the only way to identify and take more effective actions, but I do not see any incompatibilities between science and religion. The only time I would say a religion is more wrong than another is if it systematically promotes harm to others. Every major religion has some harmful individuals, but I don't think that makes the religion more wrong. All the major religions promote peace and benevolence, so the problem lies with the individuals, not the religion itself. It is also problematic if an individual relies on his spiritual beliefs to the extent of ignoring effective/scientific methods, but again, I don't think any major religion is fundamentally incompatible with scientific thinking, so that is a problem with the individual.

I've dabbled in philosophical daoism/Buddhism since I took some classes in them in my last year of college. I think I would be much more peaceful if I were more committed to them. However, I currently prefer the beauty of extreme emotions, despite their accompanying turbulence, so I am not yet at a stage of life where I am interested in becoming fully immersed in daoism/Buddhism.

- Is there anything else important about you that we should know?

Here is some random stuff that might be relevant.

While I do not care to be comfortable, I would much rather be physically comfortable than physically excited (e.g., in a state where there is potential danger).

I cannot stomach violence in TV shows/movies.

I am very aware of power dynamics and seek to associate myself with those I see as having high social status. However, I often fail to do so, though I somewhat succeed in consoling myself through reminding myself that I am particularly good at supporting and defending the powerless and perhaps I am not meant for personal glory. Despite my love of status, I do not value power for its own sake--I understand wanting status for the sake of social inclusion, the acquisition of security/luxuries, basically any other goals one might have--but I completely don't understand power for the sake of power (like on House of Cards).

I constantly ask people to clarify what they mean by certain words, as I've found that people can mean drastically different things even with ostensibly benign/single-meaning words. E.g., one of my friends has started flirting with a supposed LII and evidently feels very comfortable with him, so she asked me if I also generally get the feeling that I can "trust" LIIs. So I asked her what she meant by trust. Then she said "feeling familiar," which seems to me to be a very different question from trust.

[Exodus]

@Economist Again, the best kind of information for typing someone is that which is spontaneous and real-time. You seem concerned about how you come across to others, but the point of typing someone is to cut through all of that.

Some words you used to describe characteristics you like or don't mind in others are: strict, assholish, bossy, blunt, direct. These are most characteristic of types that have and as ego functions.
It also seems extremely strange for an Vulnerable type to have a love of status and to seek out relationships with people of high status.

[Saoirse]

You don't think that could just be due to having an so-first instinctual stacking?

[Exodus]

No. Even if that trait has anything to do with Enneagram, it's still in socionics.

[Persephone]

I did not read much of what you wrote just watched 2 minutes of your video. Introverted mannierisms and so/sx for sure, leaning ethical.

[The Exception]

There are lots of vocabulary and themes: you enjoy "objective" stuff, working on various kinds of intellectual puzzles and figuring out how different pieces go together. The stuff you described as being boring sounded more like . However, it's somewhat difficult to see you as a Ti leading type. LII doesn't fit because of the numerous times you mentioned getting what you want (). LSI probably doesn't work either because of how you describe your strengths and weaknesses: LSIs are usually attentive to their environment and have less problems with money and asserting their interests and not being taken advantage of.

Overall it's clear that you're a Ti valuing introvert. Other introverted elements were present: making people happy (), and for listening understandingly to people's problems and giving advice; making one person happy making life worthwhile. It seems that IEI fits the best. The most telling things were what you look for in others (which wasn't in the original video ) and the desire to be "on a team" with someone else. You also mentioned having children as a way of achieving immortality

I was also considering IEI but EII is another strong possibility. From the video it was hard for me to tell what was more prevalent.

It's clear throughout you have strong Ni and Fi. The introspection, the 'mysteriousness', interest in the society as a whole, where its headed for Ni. For Fi, the strong identification with the qualities of compassion, being a good listeners, highly value your close friendships with others.

Also its clear your Te and Se are weak. You mentioned one of your main weaknesses is with money matters (Te). You even mentioned that it wasn't so important to get your paycheck right away as long as you get it eventually. I would think stronger Se would be more pushy about getting it right away. Also avoiding conflict with others- if someone insults you rather than confronting them, you just wallow on the inside- weak Se.

You admire people who are disciplined, work hard, are smart, get things done in the world, know what they want and they get it. This sounds like it could fit either Te or Se suggestive.

Interestingly you mentioned that you find endearing people who are 'strict' and a little bit of an asshole, who are really argumentative and aggressive about their beliefs. I would say this fits Se suggestive a bit more, but it could be Te suggestive, particularly if the strictness is related somehow to procedures or how to do something more efficiently.

I might lean just very slightly towards IEI, just because of the overall demeanor- you do seem rather emotionally expressive (Fe) but in a rather calm way, not more spastic like some EIEs are. Also, you don't seem to value Si very much- not much decor in your apartment, uncomfortable furniture but it doesn't seem to bother you that much, you don't spend that much time there anyway.

[The Exception]

I did not read much of what you wrote just watched 2 minutes of your video. Introverted mannierisms and so/sx for sure, leaning ethical.

This is a case where stacking seems more 'obvious' than the type. At least to me.

[The Exception]

What's been on your mind? Has anything been worrying or concerning you? What problems have you encountered lately?

More practically, I've been worried about the development of my research agenda. As I am now in the third year of my graduate program, the first year of real research, I feel lost as to how to complete my first real research project. I've heavily invested in certain mathematical/statistical techniques that I greatly enjoy intellectually, but for which I cannot find applications that feel meaningful to me. On the other hand, there are topics and questions that do feel meaningful to me, but they would require essentially changing my subfield entirely. There are many complications to doing that--not only would I have to catch up in those subfields, but I would also have to develop new relationships with those professors.

This sounds like EII- Fi base + Te seeking

- Is there anything else important about you that we should know?

Here is some random stuff that might be relevant.

While I do not care to be comfortable, I would much rather be physically comfortable than physically excited (e.g., in a state where there is potential danger).

I cannot stomach violence in TV shows/movies.

Not caring to be comfortable- Si is not valued.
Prefer physical comfort to physical danger- Si stronger function than Se probably.
Dislike of physical violence- it's common in Se PoLR but I've seen this across multiple types, particularly those with weak Se.

I am very aware of power dynamics and seek to associate myself with those I see as having high social status. However, I often fail to do so, though I somewhat succeed in consoling myself through reminding myself that I am particularly good at supporting and defending the powerless and perhaps I am not meant for personal glory. Despite my love of status, I do not value power for its own sake--I understand wanting status for the sake of social inclusion, the acquisition of security/luxuries, basically any other goals one might have--but I completely don't understand power for the sake of power (like on House of Cards).

I agree with thehotelambush- this definitely sounds like Se valuing.

I constantly ask people to clarify what they mean by certain words, as I've found that people can mean drastically different things even with ostensibly benign/single-meaning words. E.g., one of my friends has started flirting with a supposed LII and evidently feels very comfortable with him, so she asked me if I also generally get the feeling that I can "trust" LIIs. So I asked her what she meant by trust. Then she said "feeling familiar," which seems to me to be a very different question from trust.

Clarifying meaning of certain words = Ti, likely valued Ti.

On the whole, I'm leaning more towards IEI now for your type but still haven't ruled out EII entirely.

[Saoirse]

I appreciate you guys taking the time to go through my materials! Thanks so much.

I was trying to be unbiased in my answers/presentation, but since there seems to be some leaning in a direction I didn't expect, I will now try to present some direct evidence that I am EII. Note that I would rather be IEI than EII, so I am trying to convince you based purely on what I really think I am, not on what I want to be. If what follows does not convince you, I will do a lot of soul-searching and start trying to reconcile my understanding of Socionics with my being IEI.

1. In this article about the information elements, I strongly identify with the following:

"Fi is generally associated with the ability to gain an implicit sense of the subjective 'distance' between two people, and make judgments based off of said thing. Types with valued Fi strive to make and maintain close, personal relationships with their friends and family. They value sensitivity to others' feelings, and occasionally will make their innermost feelings and sentiments known in order to test the possibility of creating closeness with others.
...
Fi in [the leading position] implies the ability to almost instantly recognize whether someone is a friend or an enemy, whether they are demonstrating good will or ill will, and whether they are drawn to or repelled by the individual."

Reading this was like finally being able to put a name to one of my greatest strengths, which I had, up until recently, taken for granted that everyone could also do. For example, one of my friends presented her research in a seminar and met with a visiting professor afterwards to discuss it. I only saw the professor's behavior in the seminar, but after everything, when my friend expressed some unhappiness with the meeting, I told her not to worry too much about the professor's criticisms (of which we could not make much sense) because the professor is just at our university trying to make herself look cool and make connections with our professors, not really trying to provide thoughtful advice to students. I also pointed out that the professor just seems to be exceptionally harsh toward other Asian females (the prof is an Asian female, my friend is one, and another student that the prof belittled is one also). After I said all this, my friend (probably ILI) paused thoughtfully and didn't even comment on the professor further--all she eventually said was that I'm really good at understanding people's motivations/reading people.

Overall, I think I view relations/distances/how much someone likes someone else as static, or at least not as something that I am good at controlling or intentionally evolving. I can perceive when someone does not like me even if they are perfectly friendly, and I often feel no impetus/ability to try to change this. However, if someone is neutral toward me while I want them to like me, I try to reveal more of myself around them. In particular, I express more of my weaknesses and concerns to ask for advice on them, and I do not hide my admiration of them. If this works, great, but their new positive feelings toward me still feel like something that just happened in the natural course of things, not like something that I purposefully brought about. If it doesn't work, I don't have any other ideas on how to get closer with them.

2. Stratiyevskaya's EII description resonates with me way more than her IEI one does.

3. I've made all of my good friends take the Sociotype.com test, and I've found that the people with whom I most get along are estimated to be EII (5), ILI (5), SLI (3), LSE (3), and SEI (4). While tests may not be accurate all the time, my understanding of Socionics is such that this test would have to be systematically wrong for my friendships to make sense (considering it's a pretty substantial sample size).

If I am EII vs. if I am IEI:
EII: identity vs. quasi-identical
ILI: my benefactor vs. comparative
SLI: activity vs. super-ego
LSE: dual vs. conflict
SEI: my beneficiary vs. look-alike.

Thank you for your assistance in my journey to understand myself and others. *bows*

[Exodus]

1. In this article about the information elements, I strongly identify with the following:

"Fi is generally associated with the ability to gain an implicit sense of the subjective 'distance' between two people, and make judgments based off of said thing. Types with valued Fi strive to make and maintain close, personal relationships with their friends and family. They value sensitivity to others' feelings, and occasionally will make their innermost feelings and sentiments known in order to test the possibility of creating closeness with others.
...
Fi in [the leading position] implies the ability to almost instantly recognize whether someone is a friend or an enemy, whether they are demonstrating good will or ill will, and whether they are drawn to or repelled by the individual."

It's common for people to identify to some extent with their demonstrative function.

Reading this was like finally being able to put a name to one of my greatest strengths, which I had, up until recently, taken for granted that everyone could also do. For example, one of my friends presented her research in a seminar and met with a visiting professor afterwards to discuss it. I only saw the professor's behavior in the seminar, but after everything, when my friend expressed some unhappiness with the meeting, I told her not to worry too much about the professor's criticisms (of which we could not make much sense) because the professor is just at our university trying to make herself look cool and make connections with our professors, not really trying to provide thoughtful advice to students. I also pointed out that the professor just seems to be exceptionally harsh toward other Asian females (the prof is an Asian female, my friend is one, and another student that the prof belittled is one also). After I said all this, my friend (probably ILI) paused thoughtfully and didn't even comment on the professor further--all she eventually said was that I'm really good at understanding people's motivations/reading people.

There may be an element of to this anecdote but there is definitely also some (with ). "understanding people's motivations/reading people" is primarily in the domain of , in my view. is more about judging people's character.

Overall, I think I view relations/distances/how much someone likes someone else as static, or at least not as something that I am good at controlling or intentionally evolving. I can perceive when someone does not like me even if they are perfectly friendly, and I often feel no impetus/ability to try to change this. However, if someone is neutral toward me while I want them to like me, I try to reveal more of myself around them. In particular, I express more of my weaknesses and concerns to ask for advice on them, and I do not hide my admiration of them. If this works, great, but their new positive feelings toward me still feel like something that just happened in the natural course of things, not like something that I purposefully brought about. If it doesn't work, I don't have any other ideas on how to get closer with them.

I'm not sure that an IEI would see themselves as controlling or evolving relationships necessarily -- due to suggestive they could easily take a passive role. I would simply expect the IEI to have more fluid expectations of a given relationship, less personal boundaries etc.

The descriptions and test results don't really mean much to me -- it's entirely possible that the test is systematically wrong if it hasn't been compared to human typings.

[niffer]

@Economist

I think you're an ILE.

You explicitly mentioned in your video that you don't like being subjectively evaluated, and that it makes you feel uncomfortable for some reason. Subjective evaluation screams Fi to me. You've described that you really want to make those around you happy... and you said you're a good listener etc. but watching you on video saying this, your body language told me that you weren't fully confident about this topic. This to me suggests Fe Hidden Agenda with vulnerable Fi.

Your logical abilities seem strong, and furthermore, you seem nonchalant about it. You don't seem to be seeking more logic in any way, while also seeming to not devalue it. You especially are attracted to "fair" logic and very concerned with resolving disputes between parties in a way that pertains to using logic and ethics in this way... Alpha values with their unbiased universalism is what this reminds me of. When considering your words over video you look very analytical in thought... this seems very Ti ego if not obvious Ti creative to me. I identified as Fi ego under non-socionics Jung definitions for 8 years until I realized I was not that.... and I can relate to a lot of the values and views that you describe.

You also stated that you value when someone you're in a relationship with can vouch for your interests... this looks like seeking of Si ego protection/caretaking to me.

VI-wise, you don't look like an ethical type. You aren't especially masculine, but you aren't a super girly girl either. Your facial features are not stereotypically feminine (someone had better not pull the BS "well, all asian girls are by default more feminine" card...frankly kinda racist and myopic AF btw).

On an intellectual level I feel like I can relate to you a lot and I could definitely see you as being in business partner ITR with me. I also read Freakonomics in highschool and it was awesome. I will update you if I have any more significant thoughts.

edit: oh yeah re: public policy, I'm studying Nonprofit Management and a lot of public policy related material too. And I'm also an Fi polr. Go figure.

wild, but runner up type: ESI

[The Exception]

2. Stratiyevskaya's EII description resonates with me way more than her IEI one does.

You might want to read multiple descriptions because different socionics descriptions will interpret things a bit different. Not saying you are right or wrong in your assessment, just good to gain different perspectives.

3. I've made all of my good friends take the Sociotype.com test, and I've found that the people with whom I most get along are estimated to be EII (5), ILI (5), SLI (3), LSE (3), and SEI (4). While tests may not be accurate all the time, my understanding of Socionics is such that this test would have to be systematically wrong for my friendships to make sense (considering it's a pretty substantial sample size).

Tests are not the best way to do to determine type although the sociotype.com does seem to be one of the better ones out there. Relationships are important in socionics. If you know you get along better with certain types, it can be helpful in determining your own type. This only works though if you have typed the others correctly.

[niffer]

EII isn't impossible either imo, but if you were an EII you would probably be a bit of an unconventional one. I don't yet see a particularly strong case for Se polr... I mean you sat and talked over video for over 30 minutes straight and posted it on a very public forum right away upon joining.

[The Exception]

EII isn't impossible either imo, but if you were an EII you would probably be a bit of an unconventional one. I don't yet see a particularly strong case for Se polr... I mean you sat and talked over video for over 30 minutes straight and posted it on a very public forum right away upon joining.

I've done that too and I'm Se PoLR.

[niffer]

I've done that too and I'm Se PoLR.

I see. Yeah, after I wrote that I realized it wasn't the best indicator of non Se polr. The thing is there's nothing yet that really that sticks out to me polr-wise about Economist.

[Saoirse]

@Economist

I think you're an ILE.

...

Having an SLE type me as ILE feels flattering.

But I guess I don't show much Ne in this thread (though chips and underwear did joke I must be Ne base in my "new member intro" thread, since I have a bunch of hobbies that are pretty different--weightlifting, writing, and improv comedy). Though I like ILEs a lot, I just don't think I have high enough energy to be one.

I see. Yeah, after I wrote that I realized it wasn't the best indicator of non Se polr. The thing is there's nothing yet that really that sticks out to me polr-wise about Economist.

I thought I am Se polr because I hate violence/displays of force (like I can't even watch Game of Thrones) and I don't like physical adventures or games involving physical coordination. One of my friends adores this group game involving saying fruits and clapping at just the right times, and playing it makes me extremely anxious. I'm also really bad at saying/doing the right thing on the spot. E.g., I finally got to talk to a cute guy in my improv class, but we were walking in slightly different directions, so I just panicked and said goodbye, even though they were barely different directions for like another block--I should have just kept walking with him for a bit more. Also, there was a bit of a politics issue in my work recently. I knew I wouldn't be able to handle the situation smoothly if I improvised, but luckily I foresaw what would happen and asked my adviser to help me plan what to say.

I guess that sounds kind of Ni, but it could also be Ne--it wasn't like I was sure it would happen, it was just one thing that I thought could happen, so I wanted to prepare for it. Asking my adviser for detailed instructions on what to say is pretty Te seeking, I think?

Overall, after doing some more investigating, I do identify with some aspects of Ni (taking on others' perspectives, awareness of people using the same word to mean different things, simulating how relations among people would change if I said a particular thing?), but I don't identify with the "master of time"/future predicting aspects of it at all. My ILI friend once tried to prepare me for what I should do if a certain guy kissed me, and I dismissed her, saying it wouldn't happen (it did). The same friend, two summers ago, said that she would be in a relationship before the end of summer, and then she was. Things like this are baffling and magical to me--I don't have much sense of the appropriate timing for things. And Ni is supposed to be the "intuition of time," right? :X

Going back to what my polr is though, I don't think Te is it. I think I'm pretty accepting of new external information that changes my beliefs/model of the world, as long as I really understand/trust it. Also, I love efficiency. E.g., once I was working as a research assistant and doing a really tedious task. I came up with an algorithm for doing it as fast as possible and wrote it down clearly so that my employer could use it after I left the position.

I think a lot of my interactions with guys I'm attracted to are Te seeking--me asking a lot of questions about something they're knowledgeable about.

After reading more about Se, I have to admit I do seem Se seeking in some aspects. E.g., I admired Taylor Swift for her calculated acquisition of fame through portraying herself as a very kind, moral, benevolent, feminist person. She's one of the people whose photos I put above my desk. But recently I've been thinking I should take her down, since this summer she made a mistake that revealed her true nature, which was a pretty big blow to her image. But I am not sure I would actually get along with someone like that in reality--I think SLEs would find me boring and too lacking in power to want to interact with me.

I do find some aspects of Si in LSEs tiresome, but I feel like the Se seeking/Si disliking parts of me are just from my instinctual stacking... Like, wouldn't you expect an EII so/sx to like status more and physical comfort less than other EIIs?

I don't know if continuing to discuss at length is the best way to figure this out? I could ramble about myself and learn about Socionics from y'all forever (i.e., I'm enjoying this), but I feel bad for rambling and taking y'all's time. >_> <_< Any recommendations on steps to take to resolve this?

Edit: Maybe it would be more useful to think of "what I could do without" instead of "what I think is cool" cause all the IEs are cool and valuable in their own ways, right?

If we think about it this way, I can do without Se more than I can do without Te. Not to say SxEs can't use Te or that LxEs can't use Se, but if I had to watch an SxE persuade without Te vs. an LxE persuade without Se, I would find the latter much more convincing/admirable. I'd much rather listen to an uncharismatic listing of verifiable facts and airtight reasoning connecting them, than to a charismatic showman persuading others through sheer force of will.

[The Exception]

I thought I am Se polr because I hate violence/displays of force (like I can't even watch Game of Thrones) and I don't like physical adventures or games involving physical coordination.

I don't think hating violence/displays of force necessarily proves Se PoLR but the likelihood is probably greater with those types. My EII sister can't watch Game of Thrones either. The show is quite graphic and I find I have to shut my eyes during the more gory scenes.

Not liking games involving physical coordination- that sounds more like weak sensing in general.

I'm also really bad at saying/doing the right thing on the spot. E.g., I finally got to talk to a cute guy in my improv class, but we were walking in slightly different directions, so I just panicked and said goodbye, even though they were barely different directions for like another block--I should have just kept walking with him for a bit more. Also, there was a bit of a politics issue in my work recently. I knew I wouldn't be able to handle the situation smoothly if I improvised, but luckily I foresaw what would happen and asked my adviser to help me plan what to say.

Some of this might just be introversion in general- lack of confidence in thinking quickly on your feet I am. Also both IEI and EII have 4-D Ni so they are good at foreseeing things.

I guess that sounds kind of Ni, but it could also be Ne--it wasn't like I was sure it would happen, it was just one thing that I thought could happen, so I wanted to prepare for it. Asking my adviser for detailed instructions on what to say is pretty Te seeking, I think?

Asking for detailed instructions with logical procedures would be more Te seeking- like how to operate a new piece of equipment. In this case, it seems more like an ethical sort of issue since its more about politics between people.

Overall, after doing some more investigating, I do identify with some aspects of Ni (taking on others' perspectives, awareness of people using the same word to mean different things, simulating how relations among people would change if I said a particular thing?), but I don't identify with the "master of time"/future predicting aspects of it at all. My ILI friend once tried to prepare me for what I should do if a certain guy kissed me, and I dismissed her, saying it wouldn't happen (it did). The same friend, two summers ago, said that she would be in a relationship before the end of summer, and then she was. Things like this are baffling and magical to me--I don't have much sense of the appropriate timing for things. And Ni is supposed to be the "intuition of time," right? :X

It could be that your Ni is strong but not valued, which would be the case if you are EII.

Going back to what my polr is though, I don't think Te is it. I think I'm pretty accepting of new external information that changes my beliefs/model of the world, as long as I really understand/trust it. Also, I love efficiency. E.g., once I was working as a research assistant and doing a really tedious task. I came up with an algorithm for doing it as fast as possible and wrote it down clearly so that my employer could use it after I left the position.

This definitely sounds like Te valuing.

I think a lot of my interactions with guys I'm attracted to are Te seeking--me asking a lot of questions about something they're knowledgeable about.

Yes, Te seeking is interested in getting more facts.

After reading more about Se, I have to admit I do seem Se seeking in some aspects. E.g., I admired Taylor Swift for her calculated acquisition of fame through portraying herself as a very kind, moral, benevolent, feminist person. She's one of the people whose photos I put above my desk. But recently I've been thinking I should take her down, since this summer she made a mistake that revealed her true nature, which was a pretty big blow to her image. But I am not sure I would actually get along with someone like that in reality--I think SLEs would find me boring and too lacking in power to want to interact with me.

I don't know a whole lot about Taylor Swift. What mistake did she make and why do you think this all relates to Se seeking. I guess I don't quite understand.

I do find some aspects of Si in LSEs tiresome, but I feel like the Se seeking/Si disliking parts of me are just from my instinctual stacking... Like, wouldn't you expect an EII so/sx to like status more and physical comfort less than other EIIs?

What aspects in LSE do you find tiresome? I agree that stacking can influence how a socionics type manifests. SO firsts do tend to care more about social status and SP last will focus less on physical comfort.

I don't know if continuing to discuss at length is the best way to figure this out? I could ramble about myself and learn about Socionics from y'all forever (i.e., I'm enjoying this), but I feel bad for rambling and taking y'all's time. >_> <_< Any recommendations on steps to take to resolve this?

Go ahead and ramble, it's interesting and insightful. On the forum I'd say @Starfall @Aylen are good examples of IEIs. @Blue @Subteigh are good examples of EIIs. Who do you relate more to overall?

Edit: Maybe it would be more useful to think of "what I could do without" instead of "what I think is cool" cause all the IEs are cool and valuable in their own ways, right?

Even the unvalued IEs we need some of the time. So the question is what IEs do you value more? Of course all the IEs are valuable in their own way.

If we think about it this way, I can do without Se more than I can do without Te. Not to say SxEs can't use Te or that LxEs can't use Se, but if I had to watch an SxE persuade without Te vs. an LxE persuade without Se, I would find the latter much more convincing/admirable. I'd much rather listen to an uncharismatic listing of verifiable facts and airtight reasoning connecting them, than to a charismatic showman persuading others through sheer force of will.

It sounds clearly to me that you value Te more than Se. Based on what you posted here, I would say EII is much more likely than IEI. You seemed to vibe more as IEI in the video but in this post you have made some quite convincing arguments for EII. I lean more towards EII now for your typing but I still wouldn’t rule out IEI as a possibility. Ultimately you know yourself better than anyone else.

[niffer]

@Economist

In regards to Te vs. Se "seeking", you would actually be seeking partners who are strong in both IEs if you were EII, as we are essentially seeking those who are strongest in our weakest areas. SLE and LSE have the same (or, similar) functional dimensionality.

I also do not think that you come across as being Te polr.

1D Se does seem more likely than 1D Si based on your descriptions.

At this point I am fine with EII for you. It's been said in subtype theory discussion that if you have a well developed creative function, you may bear resemblance to your supervisee type. In my experience also, people can tend to vibe like their business partners too when this happens. This would explain why many have put you in the Alpha NT range in terms of your initial "vibe".

[Sol]

seems S type

my bloggers types examples mb used to check IR impressions

[Tallmo]

I can't decide between EII or LII. You seem Normalizing subtype.

[Tallmo]

I can't decide between EII or LII. You seem Normalizing subtype (or slightly H).

great video, thanks!

[Hope]

My thoughts are T>F. I don't see Fi. You even say that you dislike the idea of being evaluated subjectively and that's what Fi types do always. Your topics are very focused in academic and work so the problems you care about. Nothing of ehtics of relations imo. Alpha values, conservative, caring, you love to communicate ideas but you dislike fluffy things, you dislike believing in other ppl which is what Fi does best (especially Fi Ne), communicating in fluffy way and believing in others.


LII-Ti is very possible. I haven't seen the whole video yet, if I notice something different I'd post it later


Edit. I have a girlfriend LII-Ti and other one EII so I say stuff from experience not just for saying, I know personally both types since years ago.

Also I think @User Name is good example of LII-Ti.

[FDG]

I think you come across as a Fi dominant rather than Ti dominant, even though this forum lacks examples of LII females.

[The Reality Denialist]

Ij... I don't think ESI is a possibility here. You also seem logical. Anyways, you want to support people but I think it is done via logical ways. Fi bases seem very fussy to me. I think you are an emotivist in Reinin's heretic dichotomies which probably makes you partially to identify as an ethical type (also you seem to identify with harmonizing subtype traits) and you would best dualize with an ethical constructivist.


How Fi bases supplies support to their duals? They give (probably) heartfelt ethical guidelines (as in treatment) in constructive manner and emotivist base accepts it with gratitude.

Anyways, take this as a grain of salt.

[User Name]

Is there any way I can help?

[Hope]

Is there any way I can help?

type her.

[User Name]

type her.

Right...

Well, I don’t think she’s an LII: she says “I’m here to make people happy and not for other people to make me happy” or something like that. It feels like Fe valuing, but definitely not Fe Suggestive (she values Fe but she’s also good at that).

She also says that she likes people who “know what they want and know how to get it”. That’s basically Se seeking. It makes sense, because she’s introspective and people usually don’t perceive what’s going on in her mind (strong Ni).

There’s also a part where I see Si devaluing (she doesn’t care about coziness in her apartment) that could be related to Si in the Super Ego block.

In in my opinion she’s a Beta NF. Maybe IEI > EIE, but both can be possible.

[nefnaf]

I watched about 5 minutes, in my assessment you are inert SEI. From Meged & Ovcharov portrait:

Appearance: Calm and soft person in interaction. With his presence often pacifies others. Industrious, practical, does everything with a sense of taste. Often engages in fine arts as a hobby. Well-wishing, tactful, unobtrusive. Tries to sympathize, to assist, to provide advice. Loves rest and comfort. Likes talking about his perceptions and sensations. Attentively questions his conversation partner in regard to his or her affairs. Slightly delayed in his behavior and speech, sometimes stretching out words and with difficulty forming clear thoughts. Even if he speaks fast, he doesn't hurry to end the conversation. Able to speak about the same subject with erudition, comprehensively and at great length. Smiles with confidence, nods her or his head as a sign of support. Movements are smooth, stylish, somewhat slow; may appear to waddle and "walk like a duck". Undemonstrative, but clothes and accessories nevertheless attract attention.

[WinnieW]

Well, I don’t think she’s an LII: she says “I’m here to make people happy and not for other people to make me happy” or something like that. It feels like Fe valuing, but definitely not Fe Suggestive (she values Fe but she’s also good at that).

I agree. She is either an -ego type or xEE with -demonstrative + Enneagram type 2
...based on that description solely... I haven't watched the video, yet.

[Hope]

Right...

Well, I don’t think she’s an LII: she says “I’m here to make people happy and not for other people to make me happy” or something like that. It feels like Fe valuing, but definitely not Fe Suggestive (she values Fe but she’s also good at that).

She also says that she likes people who “know what they want and know how to get it”. That’s basically Se seeking. It makes sense, because she’s introspective and people usually don’t perceive what’s going on in her mind (strong Ni).

There’s also a part where I see Si devaluing (she doesn’t care about coziness in her apartment) that could be related to Si in the Super Ego block.

In in my opinion she’s a Beta NF. Maybe IEI > EIE, but both can be possible.

How about ILI?

[Delilah]

@Saoirse the meticulousness of your explanations, the detailed answers backed by some reference material, the general subdued vibe etc: i'd say EII

[The Reality Denialist]

Anyways, EII would sound more plausible in light that she doesn't do lot's projection towards the future. LII's tend to do this a lot.

[User Name]

How about ILI?

I don’t think so. There’s just too much display of Fe to be a Fe PoLR type in my opinion.

[Sol]

Anyways, EII would sound more plausible in light that she doesn't do lot's projection towards the future. LII's tend to do this a lot.

1) her type is not *II
2) EII and LII are the same in relation to Ni and hence the future

[Saoirse]

I am honored to have so many Fe ego guesses, but I think you are just picking up on my social-first instinct. I don't think I'm really Fe ego, because while I try to be aware of everyone in a group and how included they feel so I can make sure everyone feel included, I'm not really the "life of the party" type. I'm easily forgotten myself in large groups of less close friends, as I am too hesitant to say much for fear of interrupting others. I don't think I can freely influence others' moods as an Fe ego should be able to do. I notice and care for the meek and generally try to consider what effect my actions/words will have on others, but I don't think people around me feel swept up by my emotional affect.