no, they're EIIOriginally Posted by Renna
no, they're EII
You are LIE for real? Not a humanitarian?
Anyway, if you expect everyone just work under a single mindset/system for the society just like the atn for their colony, then you underestimate the differences between each human’s personality and how personal ambition drive them. Communist failed in the past for such reasons, and even the most powerful LSI tyrant can’t enforce such system for so long before it’s all fall apart.
Yep.
The problem is that it seems that anything that is not capitalism, it "has to be" communism. I don't see it that way. Some system can be devised that is neither capitalism nor communism. Also, in a properly made system, ambition and personal gain would not be completely thwarted, perhaps it could be made into a sort of "game" where people could partake and engage those motivations. But the foundations of society would not be capitalist (nor communist).Anyway, if you expect everyone just work under a single mindset/system for the society just like the atn for their colony, then you underestimate the differences between each human’s personality and how personal ambition drive them. Communist failed in the past for such reasons, and even the most powerful LSI tyrant can’t enforce such system for so long before it’s all fall apart
Money creates inequality, which I don't understand how any Gamma can be for (with their valued -Fi--Fairness). I guess they have been too programmed by the system. But some Gammas (I have noticed and it has been reported on the forum) are all for UBI (universal basic income) which would be a step towards this moneyless society. The way the system is made, you are coerced to partake in it unless you want to be pariah. I don't see how this is reasonable or can be desired by anyone. In the event that the system is corrupt (which is it kinda is) you are still coerced to partake in it. Doesn't make sense and the negative karmic effect (especially if you are aware of this fact) can be quite merciless.
The way the system is set up, it makes it so that malicious individuals are allowed to thrive, while decent people get left behind.
Last edited by lavos; 11-06-2022 at 11:15 AM.
Then, the angel asked her what her name was. She said: "I have none"
That would be interesting. He did convince me of some ethical beliefs, and he had kind of a bad influence on my Si. He also seemed pretty socially aware, although often times it seemed like he was comfortable violating the social atmosphere. I'm guessing that could be partly due to being Sx/So.
My guess is that he was EII or some enlightened Gamma type.
Then, the angel asked her what her name was. She said: "I have none"
@Clarke *friendly reminder*: do not be easily convinced
I’m not saying you are communist, just an example of man-made system being force into reality in a rigid way and how bad it could be. Capitalism is not perfect and have many flaws and may be replace one day by another form of society, but it happened as a natural evolution of society, bullet proof and battle- tested. Unlike Communism is just a theory created by a man (and others). Be careful of being too idealistic (but I’m not against trying something new to see what happens, could be fun).
I'm not sure that he had business logic. I don't think he really considered efficiency when we talked, but I actually don't remember the conversations that well. I think that if he considered efficiency, our debates would've gone much smoother.
I think that socialist societies might've existed a long time ago. To my knowledge, our ancestors exterminated those peaceful, egalitarian people. In my opinion, the only hopes for socialism are if people can change behaviors (we could say that capitalism is a product of randomness that kind of snowballed), or if we regrew/redeveloped the peaceful people within our society.
I think someone might use this rationale for eugenics.
Socialism is nice, but i doubt the world would go full socialism anytime soon. It may be some kind of hybrid with capitalism I don’t know.
Our ancestors may not as peaceful when they crushed other tribes.
Hobbit society seem perfect and many may look up to it, but Hobbit can’t fight orc.
I think that I might see D types as supervisors. To me, D types by description and by VI face examples seem to have the following characteristics:
-Admirable characteristics. They seem powerful and impressive.
-Scary or mean looking characteristics.
-By description, they seem like people who would be intimidating to me.
-They seem like someone that I'd be in a lower psychological position to.
I'm not really sure what the implications of this are. D's don't seem to have any supervisees, and even if C's were actually supervisees, I don't think that I'm likely to be a C type. It's possible that I'm just interpreting a conflictor as someone that would be interesting to be with.
Edit: I remember that one person on this forum said that someone with your PoLR can either seem perfect or like the least interesting person on earth. Maybe that's what's going on here. It seems like I either think that D types are highly impressive (maybe even perfect in some cases) or problematic in some way. This would imply that I'm actually a H type.
Edit 2: I actually might also see the C types as impressive in some ways. Normally, I would try to look to real life examples, but I'm not sure what part of my like for D faces is based on DCNH, and what part seems to be based on other factors, such as Socionics type or maybe even Enneagram.
Last edited by Clarke; 11-07-2022 at 07:20 PM.
Socialism still uses money and the money-mindset. It's just a "prettier" form of capitalism. I'd say get rid of the whole idea of money altogether, and see how it works/what it leads too. But first we need a global catastrophe or something of the sort. And even then some people might still try to use some item as money, like for example bottle caps. It is deeply ingrained in the collective psyche, when it's actually a construct of current societal structures.
Or maybe not. Being human in a society requires some sort of "money"? There is always the possibility of bartering directly for items, with another item, in theory money just facilitates things. But in practice it becomes a haven for objetification-prone people to act out their low thinking/low humanistic development. Maybe it's society the problem, not money? Maybe the problem is that we are slaves to draconic system that forces us to earn our right to live? Is this the problem of the societal system, or is it a more profound problem, or nature? Shouldn't humans, as evolved self-aware beings, somehow rise above it (in an ideal society). The optimum way would be for people to want to contribute, without expecting a reward, just for the satisfaction of doing what they enjoy doing, and a work properly done (and consideration for your fellow man).
Last edited by lavos; 11-07-2022 at 08:30 PM.
Then, the angel asked her what her name was. She said: "I have none"
I decided to edit this post (mostly by making it more concise).
I have historically shown interest in the following characters:
-Frank Castle (Punisher Max).
-Doomslayer (Doom 2016).
-Master Chief (Halo).
When I wrote this, I perceived these characters as these types:
-Frank Castle: LSI-D or N. He shows a lack of presence in his comics (it helps him blend in), which might indicate not D.
-Doomslayer: SLE or LSI D or N. He has a significant presence in his world (people react uncomfortably at his presence) and is harsh.
-Master Chief: N or D (unknown Socionics type, likely ST). I said that he had a significant reputation and maybe a presence, but wasn't pushy. I had limited knowledge about Master Chief, as I hadn't played the Halo games.
The above guesses were supported by the following perceptions I had when I wrote the original post:
-Frank Castle seemed to fit the Tactical Dichotomy.
-Doomslayer seemed more likely to fit the Strategic Dichotomy than the Tactical Dichotomy.
-Frank Castle seemed like he could be N because he's seems like a person who fights crime because criminals messed up his ordered world. He's apathetic to events outside of his business (killing criminals).
-Doomslayer seemed like he could be N because the presence of demons messes up his previously ordered Earth.
For comparison purposes, I tried to type Azula from Avatar: The Last Airbender. Due to her "scary" and "mean" qualities, but also qualities that I thought were admirable, I guessed that she was D.
I perceived all of the characters I mentioned as having the following elements:
-Frank Castle: Earth.
-Doomslayer: Earth or fire.
-Master Chief: Probably water. I'm not sure.
-Azula: Fire.
I thought that Azula's typing was biased because she had fire abilities (was a fire bender) in her world.
In this post, I also speculated about the following:
-That I see people who are xD as Dx (D-primary) in DCNH.
-That my interest in Dx people would make sense if I was HN.
-That I might be H-primary instead of N-primary because I thought that I fit the H description more than the N description.
-That I was probably HN or NH.
-That I might be ILI.
I also provided the following information about myself:
-I sometimes pick up trash that people threw outside of trash cans and put them into the trash cans. I don't think I was bothered by the people who threw the trash outside of the trash can.
-I show mixed reactions to germs and health violations. In certain situations, I seem almost paranoid about germs, while in others I seem fairly relaxed compared to others (I don't wash my hands before eating if I haven't been in contact with anything that could logically be dirty). I'm not bothered when others have these attitudes.
-I care about being late.
-I care that people follow the rules.
-My imagination style doesn't seem to match what I thought was an EII imagination style.
-I had H characteristics, such as saying things delicately and being willing to do anything for lovers and sometimes even friends. I have been manipulated this way.
-I don't match the H section about shoes. I speculated that I would react to the shoes situation by doing the following: "Generally, if someone walked into my house and I didn't want them to with shoes, I'd probably stop them at the front and say "Nope. No shoes in the house.". Although, I think I'd be kind of bothered if I said "No shoes in the house." and they just walked right past anyway. I generally have no ability to stop this upfront."
-I didn't consider myself historically thick skinned (it was a learned behavior).
-I would be bothered, but not too bothered if I wasn't congratulated on my birthday. I would use the grievance as a sort of bargaining chip.
-I know of a possible H with goofy, friendly, expressive behavior.
-I know of a person who looked D-primary. I didn't have a good interaction with this person.
I speculated that the D-primary person mentioned in the section above was steamrolled by my N behaviors (I assumed that I could be N). Therefore, she would be a CD according to previous posts in this thread. I later guessed that she was CDNH. After being apparently steamrolled, she didn't seem to have good interactions with other people that I thought could be H's. I didn't personally perceive myself as steamrolling her (it seemed like it was self-inflicted to a degree).
I now have the following perspectives:
-Punisher (Punisher Max) looks like a N-primary type (likely LSI-N).
-Punisher corresponds with the element earth.
-Doomslayer (DOOM 2016) looks like a D-primary type (likely SLE-D).
-Doomslayer corresponds with the elements earth or fire.
-Master Chief (Halo) looks like a N-primary type (unknown Socionics type).
-Master Chief corresponds with the element water.
-Azula looks like a D-primary type (I think she's Beta DN, but she also could somehow be LIE).
-Azula corresponds with the element fire (potentially biased). She does seem very fiery.
For the above perspectives, I didn't use the following information for typing:
-DCNH emphasis on IE's (Gulenko).
-DCNH Dichotomies (Gulenko).
-DCNH VI (Sanguine Miasma).
Currently, I think that I look N and correspond to the element water. However, I know that this is probably theoretically wrong because I have characteristics that match the Distancing and Initiating Dichotomies. I still don't know my Socionics type (there seems to be arguments for both EII and ILI). Despite test results, I don't think LII is realistic because I don't value Fe usage in partners or social situations (I seem to prefer straightforward, factual communication).
Last edited by Clarke; 02-04-2023 at 09:29 AM.
I decided to edit this post as well.
In this post, I typed myself as NCDH or NCHD based on questionable rationales. The main rationale that I used to type myself these was that I preferred the elements in the following order: Water > Fire > Earth > Air. I was confused about whether I preferred Fire over Earth.
Currently I prefer the elements in the same order that I listed above.
Last edited by Clarke; 02-04-2023 at 09:19 AM.
Are you sure you should bother this much with DCNH, before having figured out your Sociotype?
Then, the angel asked her what her name was. She said: "I have none"
I guess I thought that DCNH might be somewhat separate from type. The descriptions seem detached from type.
I also can't seem to figure out my type by descriptions, and I think it might be because I'm non-standard for a type. I haven't figured out if I'm an EII with just very low Si or what seems like high Ti (and maybe an apparent lack of a description-like Se weakness), or an ILI with what seems to be somewhat low logical skill and very low Se (nearly a vulnerability). I assumed ILI for a while because an EII discussed their imagination style and it seemed more emotionally and physically analytical than mine. It would explain why I also seem to have democratic, and maybe historically decisive characteristics.
If it helps, another user said I seemed too dispassionate to be an ethical type. This would make sense to me, except that I also have w5 characteristics which can make people look dispassionate.
Ultimately, this seems to be a problem with understanding the definitions of a type. Without examples of the borderlines of each type, I can't seem to categorize myself into the appropriate box.
Edit: I also tried the following other ways to type myself:
-I tried to use Model A. The most I could do with my current self awareness was say that I probably didn't have Si in Super-Id, since I don't seem to expect it from society. Currently, this isn't that confident of a conclusion.
-I tried to use Dichotomies. With my self awareness at the time, I thought that I had dichotomies that were completely incompatible. They were dichotomies from both the ILI and the EII, namely tactical for ILI, and static and yielding for EII. I did this based on my perceptions of what I was likely to do, and what I remember from history.
Edit 2: An interesting point is that I can imagine what would be an ideal society for me. The ideal society for me is one that would be structured and logical, and operate based on a system of hard rules. This seems like it would be an EII characteristic, both in the imagining of the society and what I'd like it to be. I think what made me think that the relevant EII characteristic didn't apply to me is that I don't really have a strong desire to make society this way.
Last edited by Clarke; 11-08-2022 at 02:37 PM.
Have you tried VI and tests?
Then, the angel asked her what her name was. She said: "I have none"
@Clarke, come to the dark side; get your daddy to pay for your G-test today!
I tried a test once and got 3Te-LSE. I think the next time I tried it that day, I got 2Ne-ILE. I tried it more recently and got 3Te-ILI with LIE as a second result. When I took the test the first two times, I don't think I was completely clear headed. When I took it the 3rd time, it's possible that I was mimicking someone or that I just believed that I had ILI characteristics.
An interesting point is that I got EII as a possible result on all of these tests, so maybe that indicates something.
I generally don't post my pictures on the internet, so it would be hard for someone else to VI me. I would say from looking at myself that I'm probably more likely to be an ethical type. My VI abilities are generally unreliable. I think that my face actually might resemble the H faces more than the N faces in the Gulenko resource.
Edit: You know, I took the test again and I got 3Ne-EII. I think I was more realistic this time, and I tried to consider how I historically acted instead of what I would normally perceive myself to be. Historically, I've generally not really been a person who does a great analysis on the functionality of objects, and I've also been a person who had a great interest in art rather than securing my individual position anywhere. I also don't remember having that much faith in my interpretation on where the future was headed.
Anyway, I'm actually really sorry that I've basically been masquerading as an ILI. I'm guessing I somehow fooled myself into thinking that I was that type, or maybe I was just optimistic. This makes sense anyway, because I seem to have an aversion to chaotic violence, and don't really seem to have the ability to impose myself on other people.
Some additional information:
-When I took the test before and got ILI, I did it based on what my skills appeared to be at the time. Around that time, I seemed to be predicting the future, so I answered likewise.
-During this test, I assumed that my ability to spot colors was better than my ability to imagine the past and the future. I think that this makes sense historically.
-During this test, I assumed that my ability to generate possibilities was better than my ability to see trends. Generally, when I imagine anything, I think that I seem to generate possibilities that I don't care about realizing. Though I wouldn't necessarily call these fantastical.
-I also assumed that I was better at analyzing relationships than forming classifications. I'm actually not completely sure about this one, but I assumed this because I seem to be good at doing some kind of analysis on the nature of peoples' relationships, or what actions could impact them.
Edit 2: I'm having trouble imagining myself as EII-H. Harmonizing ethical types are supposed to be the kindest ethical types, and as far as I know, I'm simply not that kind. I have kind characteristics, such as being nice to bugs and small animals. However, I'm also the kind of person who historically has said that the massacre of millions of people was just a reality of war. I just highly doubt an ethical H type would ever say something like that, even in their childhood.
Last edited by Clarke; 11-08-2022 at 05:20 PM.
So, these are the Model A test scores that I got when I took the test, if anyone's curious. I think that these scores make sense, considering I have what seems like a decent ability to see what might affect people emotionally on the forum and generally no ability to act or influence anything in the physical environment. I think the confusion about having okay Te seems to be that my Te score seems similar in strength to my Fi score.
I'm not sure what theory they used to come up with the percentages of this. I would guess that it's one that says that an increase in thinking results in a boost to both Te and Ti. It's probably in a similar section to the one that says that you can only have one Je function active at one time (Te or Fe).
Here's some more information about myself if somehow I took the test wrong. I think I'm only really saying this because I visited Delta Lounge, and it was actually pretty boring. People were talking about how they liked certain temperatures and how northerners had certain characteristics or something, and I guess I just don't understand.
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...naire-(Clarke)
Edit: You know, honestly I don't remember if I used to talk about the weather. I remember saying that I liked the cold and rain. Maybe I'm just different now.
I think I kind of did a quick scan of the Lounge, and it's possible that I didn't really try to read through the content. Theoretically though, if I perceive things like an EII, I think I should be more interested. But it's possible that somehow, I don't perceive things like an EII anymore.
Last edited by Clarke; 11-08-2022 at 11:06 PM.
There's a better test for that. This one Test beta - AIM | AIM (aimtoknow.com)
Then, the angel asked her what her name was. She said: "I have none"
I took the test twice. The first time, I took it by answering how I thought I was according to my self image and what I generally seemed to know about myself (we could say that I answered it naturally). I think that I tried to do a general analysis on this instead of doing what I currently felt. The second time, I took it by answering how I remember being or how I think I would appear according to others' standards. On questions where I didn't know the answer, I answered "3". I didn't double check the answers.
This generally seemed like a hard test for me to take. I seemed to get a sort of fatigue in the middle of taking the test due to the number of questions it had. During the second test, I had occasional moments where I answered questions automatically, and realized the answers were wrong.
Here's some additional information about my test taking:
-The first time I took the test, I answered that it was pleasurable when others felt fear. I answered it this way because even though I don't generally like making people fearful, occasionally it feels pleasurable when people feel fear, especially if I don't like them.
-The first time I took the test, if one word in the question didn't seem to apply to me, it greatly affected my answer.
-The second time I took the test, I tried to consider all of the words in the question and answer in a sort of balanced way.
-I answered that I liked to do detailed work on the test. However, I'm not sure this is accurate, since I didn't double check the questions either time. I historically remember liking to do some detailed work, but also being lazy with some details or types of work (I think that there's a chance that I might've been too lazy to check my answers on this kind of test before).
-I answered the first time that I think innovative ideas should be cut down instead of being out there and causing confusion, but I clearly haven't done this on the forum. I think that I might also not be currently doing this. Generally, throughout my life, I've been pretty skeptical of new and optimistic ideas.
I think that both test taking attempts might be biased in some way. I'm not sure that I answered either set of questions completely accurately.
Attached are the Socionics types results for each test.
Edit: Changed one of the attachments to the correct picture (the former picture was a comparison picture). The picture should now be called "aim test 2 socionics type.png".
Last edited by Clarke; 11-09-2022 at 01:13 PM.
Here are the cognitive functions/Socionics elements results for each test. I also took screenshots of the other information, including all of the results and my answers for the test questions.
Here are the dichotomies results for each test. I think the lack of a farsighted dichotomy in the first test might indicate that somehow, my approach there was flawed.
Edit: I was going to fix the images for the last 2 posts, but I realized that they should be fine since comparison images still have my scores.
Last edited by Clarke; 11-09-2022 at 01:14 PM.
For reference, here's the first test elements results comparison with the average ILI.
I made an interesting observation. Notice how my Te score is negative, which would fit ILI or EII. My Si score varies per test, but on the self image test attempt it's small (could indicate that it's negligent), and on the realistic test it's not only large, but positive. LII's have Si in the negative position, and due to EII's using it similarly, I would assume that EII's have a similar type of score.
However, I also do have some functions that show characteristics that are uncharacteristic of the type, such as Ti in this picture.
Edit: I made the following observations:
-The following functions fit the ILI in terms of their score directions (self image test): Ni, Se, Fi.
-The following functions don't fit the ILI in terms of their score direction (self image test): Ne, Si, Ti, Fe, Te.
-The following functions fit the LII in terms of their score directions (realistic test): Ni, Se, Ti, Fe.
-The following functions don't fit the LII in terms of their score directions (realistic test): Ne, Si, Te, Fi.
While writing this, I made an interesting observation. I seem to be stating what's true instead of what's not true when I have an idea in mind. I think this is generally what I do in speech. This would imply the positivist dichotomy. I'm not sure if I generally think that I speak confidently when proving a concept/idea rather than disproving something. That might be relevant instead of the stating of facts.
I realized after looking further that direction probably has nothing to do with the accepting/producing characteristics in Sociotype's version of model A, since ILI's should have Ni in an accepting position while LII's should have it in the producing position. As shown in the pictures, Ni has a positive quality for both the ILI and the LII.
As an additional note, for a large part of my life, I've been fairly unpragmatic. When it came to careers, for a while I was basically like "I'm not sure" and then chose art for some reason. Later, I realized science would bring me more money. I don't think this is strong Te behavior.
Last edited by Clarke; 11-10-2022 at 12:42 PM.
More information about me can be found here: https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...naire-(Clarke) . I think that in the future, I'll post information about me there instead of in this thread (unless it's related to DCNH).
Edit: After thinking about my imagination style, I think that it would be a bad idea to keep my type as Ne-EII. There's indications that I might not be that type (I seem to have a dynamic imagination style, and Ne-EII's should theoretically have a static imagination style). Therefore, I'll change my type to EII/ILI-NH for now.
I decided to make this choice because I thought it was ethically the correct choice.
Last edited by Clarke; 11-10-2022 at 05:04 PM.
I decided to repost.
I identify with the element water. However, I'm Phlegmatic-Melancholic in 4 temperaments. As far as I know, Phlegmatic also fits the element of water.
Choleric = Fire.
Sanguine = Air.
Melancholic = Earth.
Phlegmatic = Water.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote