Further Considerations

[on a peaceful hiatus]

normie normalizers - boring and it gets worse when it’s LSI
harmonic harmonizers
dommy dominants
Think of something for creative!!!

Maybe crooked creatives? Yeah normalizing introverted logical types are pretty much the most boring people imaginable.

[Metamorph]

normie normalizers - boring and it gets worse when it’s LSI
harmonic harmonizers
dommy dominants
Think of something for creative!!!

There's nothing bad about creatives, but creative cretins alliterates.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Creatives don't play by the rules. Normie normalizers will never understand

[Metaphor]

You mean H types like to chill, and this forum is a good place for chilling? Makes sense, lol.

You're an N subtype, right? Why are you here, and how do you feel about chilling?

Eh, I usually got here to collect some resources and might as well take Socionics seriously. But uh, about chilling, I don't feel anything about it.

[Metaphor]

normie normalizers - boring and it gets worse when it’s LSI
harmonic harmonizers
dommy dominants
Think of something for creative!!!

I got to be honest, these all seemed to be badly stereotyped, no kidding lol.

[Metamorph]

I got to be honest, these all seemed to be badly stereotyped, no kidding lol.

Yeah, that's why it's impossible to come up with anything bad for creatives, because there isn't anything bad about creatives. The best you can do is try to alliterate. Of course everyone self-types as creative. It's the only normal type amidst three others which are basically personality disorders. If the languid and boring Gulenko is "creative" we really need something new. I don't care about Gulenko's animus with Jack from WSS. Jack from WSS is such a low bar he isn't even normally on my radar. I'm comparing Gulenko to interesting people outside of socionics and I find him lacking. No truly weird ideas since cognitive styles, which was superficial. No altercations, no scandals, no felonies, no misdemeanors, no pardons, no murders, no suicides, no espionage, no double-agency, no orgone accumulators or death rays in his basement, just nothing but him declaring himself he's more interesting than Jack from WSS, as if this were some kind of grand accomplishment few people could ever surpass. Socionics: Gulenko's excuse to say he's interesting since he can point to the low-hanging fruit of Jack from WSS and not be wrong about being more interesting than him.

[Metamorph]

Gulenko's tombstone inscription when he dies:

RIP Viktor Gulenko
He was less boring than Jack from WSS.
If you don't care who that was, move along.

P. S. I really have been calling Gulenko unoriginal for years.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

I think Gulenko can sleep peacefully knowing that some literal who normalizing subtype doesn't like his work, especially when your own opinions about the 'truth' are unoriginal at best.

Why would he even care about being entertaining? You have socionics in front of you, yet you are incapable to comprehend that other types have totally different motivations.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Gulenko is an alpha quadra type. he doesn't care about reputation, influence, money. maybe a lot of people should reflect about the fact that these things are only appealing to beta/gamma, instead of judging him on things he doesn't even care about. He is likely mainly driven by curiosity and noticed that almost all the people that understand him are creative subtypes. They are not better, but grasp broader perspectives more easily, and don't cling to outdated systems.

[Squirrel]

They are not better, but grasp broader perspectives more easily, and don't cling to outdated systems.

And you consider yourself creative Subtype based on this?

[on a peaceful hiatus]

And you consider yourself creative Subtype based on this?

It wasn't that difficult for me to figure out I'm C, as Vera Borisova's DCNH article explains them very well. I only care about what interests me. I can actively resist doing things I don't like. I create things for myself and I pretty much dislike rule following, nitpicky people. When you view things from a broad perspective, you identify normalizing people very fast.

[Squirrel]

It wasn't that difficult for me to figure out I'm C, as Vera Borisova's DCNH article explains them very well. I only care about what interests me. I can actively resist doing things I don't like. I create things for myself and I pretty much dislike rule following, nitpicky people. When you view things from a broad perspective, you identify normalizing people very fast.

Okay but what I don't see making sense is that you're LII with a creative Subtype, given that the creative Subtype enhances Ne and the creative function of the type (which is also Ne in the case of LII ) , you don't show any kind of Ne at all, at least not on this forum

What appears from you here is a very strict commitment to your logic (regardless of its strength / accuracy ) , not listening to any different interpretations or theories different from Socionics , all of these things are unusual for Ne type or enhanced Ne type

So, even if you're a creative Subtype , LII isn't the best possible choice

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Depends on what you define as Ne. I see it as curiosity towards everything without having a pragmatic goal in mind, which fits me, as I am interested in almost everything, but don't try to gain concrete benefits from it. For example, I do typing interviews for free, don't try to make a business out of my knowledge, change perspectives sometimes on a whim. Jack from WSS values Se.

[Squirrel]

Depends on what you define as Ne. I see it as curiosity towards everything without having a pragmatic goal in mind, which fits me, as I am interested in almost everything, but don't try to gain concrete benefits from it. For example, I do typing interviews for free, don't try to make a business out of my knowledge, change perspectives sometimes on a whim. Jack from WSS values Se.

This applies to any N type that doesn't value Te ( +EII since Suggestive is repressed usually )

[Bethanyclaire]

Maybe you are ILE..you remind me of an ILE I know..a tiny bit.

[AWellArmedCat]

Lookalike relations are probably the best short term? But might not feel as good after say two
years, that’s my impression. Still very good though. At my nan’s funeral I was chatting to a very successful female LSI who I’m pretty sure is married to her lookalike, with a kid. Whilst chatting she said something like ‘I got married too young’ and seemed a bit sad. That was a few years ago. However, I notice on social media now she seems happy and proud of her family- partner and kid. I think I’ve noticed this with lookalike couples, they have some periodic lulls in the relationship. I think lookalike is good, if you have a career you like, because any slight boredom can be ignored as you get a lot of satisfaction from your job/passion.

also I’ve been toying with the idea that we sort of have a ‘second’ type. @AWellArmedCat I have thought that you seemed a bit ILE-ish before, (though I do think you are IEI). I wondered if I feel a bit ILEish too and this is why I like SEIs.

Interesting! I'd love to hear what you find ILE-ish about me. Also what do you mean by a second type? How do you think that might work?

[Bethanyclaire]

@AWellArmedCat you seem really composed like an EP/IJ. IPs/EJs are typically clingy/involved. Like even IEE will back off if you drop them a hint. I don’t have a lot of knowledge about ILE- but of course I’ve known some. The guy I mentioned is quite gentle mannered, quite political and plays sport. I think illusionary types can seem similar- don’t they say they have a similar lyrical quality or something. Now, to an IEI that means they’re basically the same lol. Similar ideals, can think of each other as having the wrong approach to achieving the ideals.

Oh also you are American? So your fe might come across more..Americans being expressive etc.

Do you think of yourself as an observer or an experimenter?

hmm about second type- it would be a very vague existence of one..people seem to have preferences regarding which type they want to date, and I think this can be related to the type of their parents. Both my parents are si types, and I notice some of my friends have si parents. I don’t feel si like, but I’ve had a lot of problems with si stuff. And it’s like a special interest of mine- I like dancing at raves and making art occasionally. It’s like a flirtation with si. My ideal career would be teaching rather than making art..which seems like a philosophical type of career to me (ILE like?) I do care a lot about being nice- which feels like si lol.

I think my ni subtype probably developed as I needed to escape all the si..

Also, the guy I just met is SLE but he seems si like to me..

[AWellArmedCat]

@AWellArmedCat you seem really composed like an EP/IJ. IPs/EJs are typically clingy/involved. Like even IEE will back off if you drop them a hint. I don’t have a lot of knowledge about ILE- but of course I’ve known some. The guy I mentioned is quite gentle mannered, quite political and plays sport. I think illusionary types can seem similar- don’t they say they have a similar lyrical quality or something. Now, to an IEI that means they’re basically the same lol. Similar ideals, can think of each other as having the wrong approach to achieving the ideals.

I would probably call myself fairly composed most of the time, but it sort of depends. I'm definitely responsive to the hints people drop though. I'm usually actively looking for clues as to how the other person is feeling and I try pretty hard not to step on any toes.

Oh also you are American? So your fe might come across more..Americans being expressive etc.

Lol yeah, I'm American

Do you think of yourself as an observer or an experimenter?

Between those two without any context I'd say observer. If we start considering more specific situations I might lean experimenter with some things, but geeeenerally speaking I relate more to observer

hmm about second type- it would be a very vague existence of one..people seem to have preferences regarding which type they want to date, and I think this can be related to the type of their parents. Both my parents are si types, and I notice some of my friends have si parents. I don’t feel si like, but I’ve had a lot of problems with si stuff. And it’s like a special interest of mine- I like dancing at raves and making art occasionally. It’s like a flirtation with si. My ideal career would be teaching rather than making art..which seems like a philosophical type of career to me (ILE like?) I do care a lot about being nice- which feels like si lol.

I see! That makes sense to me. For me my second type would probably be like SLE or something though. Since I was a kid I've always liked all the things that were traditionally very much "boy things". I've always loved weapons, big machinery, military stuff, Bear Grylls and similar survival shows, action movies, martial arts, etc. While I was back in the US we got my friends truck stuck in the mud really bad and I was the first one to dive into the mud and get dirty. It took us two days to get that thing out and I worked at it the whole time. Solving those kind of practical problems is a ton of fun for me and I always get kind of excited when something goes wrong because it makes the problem more interesting (and is a great excuse for getting out of other, more boring obligations). I also nearly joined the Oregon National Guard out of high school cause it really just sounded like fun to me. In particular getting deployed to natural disaster relief stuff looks the most exciting.

I think my ni subtype probably developed as I needed to escape all the si..

Also, the guy I just met is SLE but he seems si like to me..

Oh, I see! that could make sense!

[Bethanyclaire]

@AWellArmedCat hmmmm I guess it's a potential then, I think I showed you the article about the temperament differences before..Behaviours of Temperaments (socionics.com) perhaps someone with better ILE knowledge could shed more light on ILE-ness lol. I do think they can be 'boy-ish', almost like the 'every boy' to the ESE 'every girl' in my mind. You seem like a balanced person anyway. It's funny because sometimes with ILEs I get almost star struck....to me ILEs seem to want to be perfect and sometimes think they are lol. I think I'd struggle with an ILE love interest as I feel like a failure (a failure who has done their best to get over it lol) but yeah I'd never be able to explain to an ILE why we're on the same level, I think they'd always see me as a bit inadequate and I detest snobbery. With other types I could convince them lol.

The second type thing...I mean it's interesting, I like to challenge the 'boxing in' of socionics, so I love the idea of randomly giving people two types just to see if I can lol

[AWellArmedCat]

@AWellArmedCat hmmmm I guess it's a potential then, I think I showed you the article about the temperament differences before..Behaviours of Temperaments (socionics.com) perhaps someone with better ILE knowledge could shed more light on ILE-ness lol. I do think they can be 'boy-ish', almost like the 'every boy' to the ESE 'every girl' in my mind. You seem like a balanced person anyway. It's funny because sometimes with ILEs I get almost star struck....to me ILEs seem to want to be perfect and sometimes think they are lol. I think I'd struggle with an ILE love interest as I feel like a failure (a failure who has done their best to get over it lol) but yeah I'd never be able to explain to an ILE why we're on the same level, I think they'd always see me as a bit inadequate and I detest snobbery. With other types I could convince them lol.

The second type thing...I mean it's interesting, I like to challenge the 'boxing in' of socionics, so I love the idea of randomly giving people two types just to see if I can lol

Yes, I believe you linked it awhile ago, but I appreciate you bringing it up again! Rereading it I feel like I got more out of it this time actually ^^

As far as having ILE as a "second type" goes, that seems to resonate with the last paragraph there, particularly the part I've italicized:

Temporary Changes in Temperament

The above descriptions are certainly not exhaustive. It should also be noted that when under excessive stress and sometimes in downtime, the observer temperament will behave like an experimenter and vice versa, while leaders will behave like a planners and vice versa. This is because the psyche will attempt to change its reference perspective (from externalized to internalized, or vice versa) in an attempt to find solutions that have eluded them. However, temperaments never change their objectives and remain either input or output oriented.

I wonder if it's something to do with IEI and ILE both having all the same signs to their functions (e.g. both have +Ne and -Ti). To be fair, SEE is another Exxp type with all the same signs as IEI, but in SEE's case they're a sensor with valued Te (IEI's PoLR) so SEE may be a less accessible Exxp type to "switch to" than ILE which is relatively psychologically comfortable. As an aside ILEs have always been one of my absolute favourite types to be around. They're delightful to me and many of my friends are ILE

[AWellArmedCat]

@Bethany
I wonder now if you've noticed other examples of people tending to "switch" to their Mirage types. I feel like you could be onto something. I'm not sure I'd go as far as to actually call this a second type, but perhaps an alternate mode when the usual psychic faculties struggle to solve some kind of problem. I have a suspicion we'll see a pattern that looks something like:

INxp :: ENxp
ISxp :: ESxp
IxTj :: ExTj
IxFj :: ExFj

[Squirrel]

@Bethany
I wonder now if you've noticed other examples of people tending to "switch" to their Mirage types. I feel like you could be onto something. I'm not sure I'd go as far as to actually call this a second type, but perhaps an alternate mode when the usual psychic faculties struggle to solve some kind of problem. I have a suspicion we'll see a pattern that looks something like:

INxp :: ENxp
ISxp :: ESxp
IxTj :: ExTj
IxFj :: ExFj

There is a theory that I came across recently

It says that people tend to either focus

1- on their mobilizing/suggestive : therefore , will sometimes look like dual , will be more similar to type's Quadra , socionics relationships will be more clear: the person will favor his Quadra and stay away from the opposite Quadra , etc

2- or their ignoring/demonstrative functions , therefore, will be more similar to Mirage type, will have better relationship with the opposite Quadra compared to average type ,and may not be very comfortable with duality and activity compared to average type

This explained a lot to me:

Why at certain times I thought Delta ST was overly boring and searched for Fe types obviously and at other times I was so uncomfortable with Fe and relied more on Te and Si* , why does my Delta NF sister sometimes look like Beta NF , why do I find some people attracted to their Role/PoLR function, etc ( attracted to, not uses )

There are some notes though:

1- In the second case, your Mobilizing and Suggestive functions are still more important to you than functions in Super Ego , it is just that your ignoring/demonstrative will be more used and you will not feel comfortable with people who uses your Mobilizing/Suggestive completely as Socionics ITR theory assumes.

2- Dimensions remain the same

[Metamorph]

I think Gulenko can sleep peacefully knowing that some literal who normalizing subtype doesn't like his work, especially when your own opinions about the 'truth' are unoriginal at best.

Why would he even care about being entertaining? You have socionics in front of you, yet you are incapable to comprehend that other types have totally different motivations.

You've been talking to yourself since you first joined and you're still talking to yourself. Never change, normalizer.

[Metamorph]

Gulenko: I'm going to try to replace a Soviet-era cybernetic theory with DISC by only giving people two types and making up for it with the DISC types. I'm totally the creative type and not the normalizing one.
Alive: You still give people more than one socionics type? The only socionics type anyone is is IEI so we can throw that away and only use the mainstream system of DISC. I have brought even more brave new complexities into the system of socionics by not even using socionics since everyone is the same type! I am more creative than you and less normalizing!

[Metamorph]

I literally posted here that I don't think socionics is good because intuition is a "rational" function. Jung had to come up with the two-function system because he didn't understand intuition is a rational function so he had to invent EIEs to explain why all the people who use intuition are acting rational. However, if you swap it so that intuition is a rational function and feeling is irrational, things make a lot more sense. Additionally, there's no such thing as introverted intuition since the introverted version of intuition is thinking, which does not have an extraverted version. Jung was too caught up in trying to make the world work the way he thought it should to be able to see how it does work in reality, and Aushra was probably right to type herself as intuitive compared to Jung being a thinker, but she didn't do very well in discarding the other assumptions Jung made which hold back socionics and especially Gulenko. Gulenko basically only every types anyone as intuitive (EIE) or logical (LSI) because feelers and sensors would be too dumb to even come to him. IEI is an invalid type to even exist, because intuition is extraverted and rational, not introverted and irrational. Introverted and irrational people are sensors, and many sensors would like to be intuitive, hence their interest in things like tarot cards, but intuitives don't need (and probably don't like) tarot cards, since those are a sensory stimulus that attempts to access information intuitives get automatically.

Most of this site probably is introverts and feelers, though, since people are trying to use socionics predictively and not for explanatory value. Sensors and feelers want predictions since they cognitively can't make them, but intuitives and thinkers want to know "why?" even though knowing why might not be practical in any immediate way. Socionics is just a failed theory. I do like relating the cognitive styles to the four temperaments, though. It shows that the highest form of cognition isn't actually what's considered as classical logic, but category theory. Just Gulenko didn't know what category theory is because he makes money selling books, not doing research.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

IEI does have a kind of ubiquitous nature to it, but that doesn't mean every type is IEI. I'm still a rare snowflake objectively speaking, deal with it. I don't want to sound like a stuck-up bitch but other people's jealousy is not my problem. Confusing IEIs naturally nondual and ubiquitous nature (Like Johnathon Levinson on Buffy the Vampire Slayer) with 'everybody is an IEI' is just a stupid logical fallacy. IEI/SEE sit together as like the heart of the socion, right in the middle of the chain. With IEIs being very internally compassionate, and SEEs actually helping you move if you need physical assistance. ((Well if they aren't total selfish assholes I mean every type can be "Unhealthy" sure, blah blah. That's such a basic thing everybody says though, I don't feel like we should always have to be reminded of that 20 seconds but babysitting is babysitting.))

[Bethanyclaire]

@Bethany
I wonder now if you've noticed other examples of people tending to "switch" to their Mirage types. I feel like you could be onto something. I'm not sure I'd go as far as to actually call this a second type, but perhaps an alternate mode when the usual psychic faculties struggle to solve some kind of problem. I have a suspicion we'll see a pattern that looks something like:

INxp :: ENxp
ISxp :: ESxp
IxTj :: ExTj
IxFj :: ExFj

There is also this from the comments section of the article..

These apparent changes in temperament are symptoms of the psyche looking for solutions when pursuing objectives; when all else fails, it 'tries' to look elsewhere. If the primary input/output system normally uses externally referenced data or processes, it will attempt to reference internally (or vice versa); however, this means switching from closed-loop modes of operation to open-loop (or vice versa). Also, if the primary normally uses relative data or processes, it will switch to absolute data or processes (or vice versa); thus, it would try to input with a S instead of N perspective (or vice versa) and output with a T instead of F perspective (or vice versa). Because the psyche is routinized in the use of normal processes and preferences, it has to make a complete switch so as to avoid potential confusion or conflict while maintaining sight of the objectives. Note that this transition likely occurs much more frequently in youth (when people are trying to 'find themselves') and perhaps (to a lesser extent?) in retirement when things are slower paced and no longer matter as much. Thus, secondary functioning in youth may be viewed as a failure mode while in later life, it may be accepted more as broadening of the soul. -- I/O

oh and I don’t know about people switching to mirage..I feel like my old IEE mate seemed a bit ILI-ish. I thought it might relate to subtype strength..when I first came on this site people said I seemed IEE-ish. I think this is because I was very anxious at the time.

I wouldn’t say in my heart I am particularly IEE-ish lol. And I think as my subtype balances out a little, I would relate more to ILE..not all aspects of ILE, just a few

My old ILI friend is dating an ESI..the ILI seems a bit LIEish to me. She is not IEI-ish at all really, although she is ILI-ni.

in other posts, I/O suggested we act like our dual when stressed, and I found a very old one of his suggesting we act like our activity partner at times, can’t remember details though

soz edited coz didn’t make sense

[Bethanyclaire]

So according to the theory that you can resemble your mirage/dual I was thinking something like..

IEI-nis that look like ILE ne/ SLE se

IEI-fes that look like ILE ti/ SLE ti

omg I’m so vain I’d love to resemble an ILE-ne lol ambitions

ok and the SEI I fell for def resembles an SLE-ti. An extremely hot, clever SLE, I never stood a chance lol

[AWellArmedCat]

I literally posted here that I don't think socionics is good because intuition is a "rational" function. Jung had to come up with the two-function system because he didn't understand intuition is a rational function so he had to invent EIEs to explain why all the people who use intuition are acting rational. However, if you swap it so that intuition is a rational function and feeling is irrational, things make a lot more sense. Additionally, there's no such thing as introverted intuition since the introverted version of intuition is thinking, which does not have an extraverted version. Jung was too caught up in trying to make the world work the way he thought it should to be able to see how it does work in reality, and Aushra was probably right to type herself as intuitive compared to Jung being a thinker, but she didn't do very well in discarding the other assumptions Jung made which hold back socionics and especially Gulenko. Gulenko basically only every types anyone as intuitive (EIE) or logical (LSI) because feelers and sensors would be too dumb to even come to him. IEI is an invalid type to even exist, because intuition is extraverted and rational, not introverted and irrational. Introverted and irrational people are sensors, and many sensors would like to be intuitive, hence their interest in things like tarot cards, but intuitives don't need (and probably don't like) tarot cards, since those are a sensory stimulus that attempts to access information intuitives get automatically.

Most of this site probably is introverts and feelers, though, since people are trying to use socionics predictively and not for explanatory value. Sensors and feelers want predictions since they cognitively can't make them, but intuitives and thinkers want to know "why?" even though knowing why might not be practical in any immediate way. Socionics is just a failed theory. I do like relating the cognitive styles to the four temperaments, though. It shows that the highest form of cognition isn't actually what's considered as classical logic, but category theory. Just Gulenko didn't know what category theory is because he makes money selling books, not doing research.

I don't have any plans to stop using Socionics, but I'm very interested in this personal theory of yours as another potential system to type people in. I think by your reasoning I am absolutely intuitive because knowing "why" is literally all I've ever cared about regarding basically anything. Have you ever made a comprehensive post outlining your system?

[inaLim]

IEI