IR test (by Sol)

[Lukida]

I didn't had the patience to look the videos so i just went by the pictures.

The quite ok, you can gimme them all, want to befriend them: LIE (just the girls)
The cute friends i think i can have nice converstations with: ILI, ESI
The could be my significant other and never get bored, help and respect eact other: LII
The I think we can be comfortable just by existing in a room in total silence, could be fun and could listen them for hours: SLI
The OK types: LSE, LIE
The confused about types: SEI, IEE, ESE
Neutral, guess fine: EII (but i fell in love with the second EII), EIE
The rather not thanks: IEI
And the HELL NO: SLE, SEE, LSI

[Sol]

I didn't had the patience to look the videos so i just went by the pictures.

Those pictures have almost nothing about nonverbal compared to several clips per every blogger.
Either you follow the recommendations or get bs with high probability. It's not a game.

[lavos]

I'm curious, can you say how not recognizing subtypes makes typing performance low?

Anyone (i.e. eunice, 1982slater, silke...) who's ever been exceptionally good at typing on this forum has used subtypes. It's just natural during the process of training oneself to VI, to notice the existence of the two subtypes. I did at one point. The fact that sol has not noticed them means his VI precision is not high. But that's not the only reason (and this subjetive); I checked his type galleries in his signatures, and disagreed with many of his typings. He seems to have pinned down certain types, but with others he tends to make mistakes. For example; he types SEE-Fi's as INFP usually.

[Aramas]

Anyone (i.e. eunice, 1982slater, silke...) who's ever been exceptionally good at typing on this forum has used subtypes. It's just natural during the process of training oneself to VI, to notice the existence of the two subtypes. I did at one point. The fact that sol has not noticed them means his VI precision is not high. But that's not the only reason (and this subjetive); I checked his type galleries in his signatures, and disagreed with many of his typings. He seems to have pinned down certain types, but with others he tends to make mistakes. For example; he types SEE-Fi's as INFP usually.

Sentence 1: bandwagon fallacy

[lavos]

Sentence 1: bandwagon fallacy

Not applicable since I am not asserting that the majority of people (far from it) are able to see the subtypes, hence they must be true. Only those who I have deemed to be exceptionally good at typing. It is evidence that when you go past a certain point, and become good at typing, you become able to differentiate the subtypes. It happened to me.

[Aramas]

Not applicable since I am not asserting that the majority of people (far from it) are able to see the subtypes, hence they must be true. Only those who I have deemed to be exceptionally good at typing. It is evidence that when you go past a certain point, and become good at typing, you become able to differentiate the subtypes. It happened to me.

Very applicable actually lol. You're asserting that people who are good at typing use subtypes. People want to be good at typing, otherwise they wouldn't be here. So, you're in essence telling people that they aren't good if they don't use subtypes. It's bandwagon by implication. "Don't you want to be good at typing like these people here? Use subtypes!" The group majority here isn't people who type but people are are good at typing.

Myself, I do use subtypes. But with something as abstract and vague as Socionics, I can't say there's any proof that we should be using subtypes, so I'll entertain the idea that they don't exist.

You need to stop trying to derail Sol's thread. If you want to make your own thread and talk about how bad you think he is at typing, you can do that. I'm sure you'll get lots of attention there. But to me you just look like some angry little puppy trying to nip at the heels of someone who has actually made a constructive, helpful post. Disagreeing is fine, but not detracting from the point and purpose of the thread.

If you really want to show us how much better you are, maybe you should make your own test.

[Sol]

@Aramas
It's nice you are trying to protect me and the thread, but I'd prefer you answered some questions to you above.

lavos tries to gather all scepticism about what I did here in one place. Some lack of understanding makes him a little funny. The more he tries, the better he thinks and so should come to the Truth sometimes. We may just leave him on his worthy way.

[Aramas]

Hence, the lesser quantity of men is enough (for Ne types, at least). This is good.

> I realized that the intention was for us to use the gender most likely to stimulate romantic attraction/duality.

Yep, there was the recommendation to use the romantically interesting sex. As romantically interesting sex/gender is more associated with the soul friendship, while other sex shifts to co-operation (and hence to similar types). Also the impressions from that sex should be stronger.
I'm glad that my hypothesis seems was correct and the recommendation have worked on you. I also saw a girl (EIE) which reported homosexual behavior and showed such interests, - she have chosen quasi-identity type to top and some of her club as the best, while types of duals club placed to bottom, where own duals placed to the lowest 16th position.

> I didn't do a full sorting because I wasn't that interested in getting the full sorting. I was more interested in finding out which one or two types I felt best about.

The problem is the test is not perfect. You are lucky to have Ne type what made the sorting easier. The full sorting is intended to find tendencies, as excellent fiting to IR theory is not expected.

> I tend to very easily understand the mental attitudes of others at times, to such a degree that I can imagine myself being in those attitudes.

It's empathy - common for NF types, especially having Fi in ego.

> This is perhaps mixed with enneagram type 9.

Are you able to assume Enneagram type by impressions from nonverbal on video-interview with unknown language? Like you do with Socionics types. I'd pm you a clip to think.

> I just did it by picking out which ones I liked AT ALL (period, even a little bit) at first. After that, I went through and gave them either plus marks, minus marks, or left them neutral, depending on what my second impression was. There was only one that came out with a plus sign. And that was the SLI video set.

What types you've chosen on 1st step?

> Curiously enough, LII ended up being in the final running because of one particular individual that you included in the set that I thought was OK.

Which LII there?

> I'm not really interested in making a video for people to see.

Your type seems to be NF, at least. Some suspicion is for EII, as high empathy is more common for them, than IEE. So if you have doubts in own type you may check it by creating a second account (afte some time) and a typing thread - then you remove the video (after 2 weeks, for example) - and so keep high anonymity. On the video you may tell any general things you like, as the main text is placed in questionnaires anyway.



There are no subtypes in classical Socionics so I don't even try to use that bs.

> just from that I know his typing performance is low

So you think that I badly identify types because I either badly identify subtypes or don't use them. Your base T is seen excellently.
Also you may try to find someone who'd had with you real typing match >50% to think there is someone who identifies types good from your speculative opinion. That would give you some sense to say that I type badly compared to others in your perception. But objective thinking is not your strong part, what would be at LIE.
I understand that you don't like that I doubt in your LIE opinion about own type. If you'd was real LIE, then you take it simpler.

Your behavior closer to F type.

I can do with enneagram what I do with Socionics, yes. Or at least, I think so. Instinct stacking is easier than type with non-verbal stuff. The eyes are especially important. They really are the window of the soul.

As far as potentially being EII, that's a possibility. But I think IEE is more likely. EII tend to have a more direct understanding of people by feeling somehow connected to them. My understanding comes more from a mental attitude like a behaviorist's along with being pretty good at making inferences. It just happens very quickly in my mind, so it might be mistaken for a more emotive kind of empathy that an INFx might have.

For example, one time I noticed that a girl had a certain complexion on the top of her feet that came from a certain kind of blood circulation. I also noticed that when she smiled, it was always with her mouth but not really her eyes. I concluded that she was depressed, and I was right when I asked her about it. There was also another friend of mine whom I concluded was on antidepressants because of her flattened affect one day. I was right again on the first try.

Another example is when I somehow managed to conclude that a person was untrustworthy on the basis of a single emoji. As it turned out, that person was a computer hacker who didn't recognize or respect the privacy of others.

On the first step, I think I chose 4, 6, 7, 12, and 15. Along with that, I had a strong negative impulse about 11.

I think <name> was the one LII I had a more neutral or even slightly positive association with.

[Sol]

I can do with enneagram what I do with Socionics, yes. Or at least, I think so. Instinct stacking is easier than type with non-verbal stuff. The eyes are especially important. They really are the window of the soul.

Zone near eyes have many mimic muscles - a lot info there. When people use glasses it makes troubles for nonverbal reading. If the glasses are dark - you can't read them at all.
I'll pm the clip.

> There was also another friend of mine whom I concluded was on antidepressants because of her flattened affect one day. I was right again on the first try.

What is called "antidepressants" do what they are named - stimulate, they don't touch emotions significantly. People may look unnaturally, - active, but without internal connection.
I had a case of insight about a medicine too - I suspected a girl to be F type, but when I saw her video - I could not read from nonverbal is she T or F, sometimes she reminded T, - I asked do she takes something - she said that takes a sedative, - it supressed nonverbal and she looked closer to T type.

> On the first step, I think I chose 4, 6, 7, 12, and 15. Along with that, I had a strong negative impulse about 11.

4 and 6 are more expected from EII. 7 - both. 12 - IEE. 15 - both. So 1st step was ambivalent for EII vs IEE. The 2nd step have pushed IEE, but not totally. There stays a chance for you be EII based of this test, - like 30% against 70% for IEE.
I recommend to look and compare LSE+LIE vs SLI+SEI.

> I think <...> was the one LII I had a more neutral or even slightly positive association with.

He has good body condition not common for LII what could to mix impressions.
The name is better to remove now from your post to don't open what type is there.

[Aramas]

@Sol, I think I generally prefer LSE to LIE. The one LIE that makes me think differently and more positively about LIE is the first one in the list. The LSEs seen like they might be a bit too firm or abrasive, but then again some LIEs are like that too, or too distant. The second LIE was like that: too distant, didn't talk enough really. The last one I think was most abrasive in the LIE category. As far as SEI versus SLI, the SEI one I liked best was the second one, and the SLI I liked best of course was the younger one. I already stated SLI > SEI I think.

[Sol]

@Aramas
I mean to compare 2 groups each having 2 types: (LSE+LIE) vs (SLI+SEI). To understand do you prefer base Te or base Si. And only groups - generalized impression from types, not concrete people.

[Aramas]

@Sol
Oh I see. Definitely the latter group. SEI+ SLI. No question there.

[Sol]

Oh I see. Definitely the latter group. SEI+ SLI. No question there.

Then seems IEE.

Taking into account your higher abbility to use nonverbal methods, you may create own list of bloggers. Just watch and type any of them, then place names and links in txt file, sometimes update a theme on the forum like I do (you may don't make pictures, just names + links). There are a lot of actors lists, but to make such with bloggers seems I was first. Bloggers are better as types examples as they are more natural and have a lot of clips in one place.

[ooo]

@lavos finally someone who understand smth!

I totally agree with the point on subtype, in its essence, which is I think the same fault we find in Sol's tests.

I don't give too much attention to subtypes usually, and not interested in pointing them out in someone... but they hold a great truth, which Sol totally lacks: there are not only 16 kinds of people. There are infinite shades, even inside each type.

It's nice to remember how Jung suggests to enhance one own's creative function as well, in orded to gain access to our deepest layers, as well as suggesting that some people do this better than others.
Because, despite it all, there are levels of evolution to each type which won't make any given LSE to be the commander of an army, sometime they can be and think, totally different.

This is the idea implied in "accepting the subtypes", you just accept we humans are more complex than a 16 types theory.

Many of the people in Sol videos are actually socionists who type themselves differently around youtube.

Many typings just look like extreme charicatures of some of the bad descriptions of the functions you can read around ze internet :]

The problem is that there is not objetive way to discern people's types. No machine has been invented that can read a person's brain patterns and tell what type their are.

actually those have been invented

[Sol]

Many of the people in Sol videos are actually socionists who type themselves differently around youtube.

in bloggers list: 2
one of which have changed the opinion about own type to wrong recently

[ooo]

in bloggers list: 2
one of which have changed the opinion about own type to wrong recently

who's that

[Sol]

who's that

youtube.com/watch?v=929FlXihG4k

[lavos]

Your typings were more accurate in general than what I had prejudged. Did you come up with all these typings yourself, or were they stablished via consensus in another (russian) forum? (yes, I looked at the key, but only after I had completed the exercise)

Note: I am 99% sure of my type~

[Sol]

@lavos
The needed format is the list of types names (without numbers to don't open the key), without groups. Like: ILE, SEI, ...

You prefer: extraverts, Fe/Ti. not delta

> Did you come up with all these typings yourself, or were they stablished via consensus in another (russian) forum?

90% these are totally my versions, - I did not knew other opinions befor agreement with that version. 10% - I could to see some blogger typed on a forum and then to agree with the version or to make own. Such thing as consensus on typology forums is so rare, so did not even thought about this to make the lists.

> Note: I am 99% sure of my type

If you still did not check your type by IR intuitive impressions with people near you and which were meaningful in your life - high chance you may mistake.

[lavos]

@lavos
The needed format is the list of types names (without numbers to don't open the key), without groups. Like: ILE, SEI, ...

Top 4: ILE,SEE, EIE, ESE
Bottom 4: SEI, IEE, LSE, ILI

If you still did not check your type by IR intuitive impressions with people near you and which were meaningful in your life - high chance you may mistake.

I have checked it via ITRs IRL. But I think you are making a mistake; the most meaningful people in your life don't need to be good ITR's.

[Sol]

Top 4

I meant without grouping, full liner sorting of all 16 types. For your format I've said already the result.
As your type is F, not T - based on your messages, then IEI seems as most possible.

Replace or remove numbers from previous post, as you open the key having numbers and types in your messages.

> the most meaningful people in your life don't need to be good ITR's

I did not said this. I said only to check how your impressions from such people fit to IR theory.

[lavos]

As your type is F, not T - based on your messages, then IEI seems as most possible.

I am a somewhat F-ish LIE, that's true, but I'm not an F type. Interesting that like I predicted you are typing me your conflictor.

did not said this. I said only to check how your impressions from such people fit to IR theory.

You said: "If you still did not check your type by IR intuitive impressions with people near you and which were meaningful in your life - high chance you may mistake.", Implying that meaningful people in your life must have some sort of correlation with certain intertypes (I assume you mean positive ones).

[Sol]

I am a somewhat F-ish LIE, that's true, but I'm not an F type.

You are F type with high probability, according to the quality of your argumentation in T region. Seems Fe valued and prefering extraverts. I doubt about SEI as your thinking seems as more complex. EIE is the closest to your current version which I can't exclude still. If I'd had your video I'd could be more sure which F you are.

[lavos]

You are F type with high probability, according to the quality of your argumentation in T region.

It's called Intuition, something which you could use a bit of.

Seems Fe valued and prefering extraverts. I doubt about SEI as your thinking seems as more complex. EIE is the closest to your current version which I can't exclude still. If I'd had your video I'd could be more sure which F you are.

Alright.

[naiad]

I was bored and decided to do this for fun. Didn't watch any of the ASMR because I can't judge my reaction to someone when they are doing a performance of some kind.

• EII -They seem nice and the male one's look intelectual. AndressASMR was very cute Holly Henry (hollymaezers) too.
• LSI - Some of them are annoying/intimidating. Don't really think we may have anything in common. Grigorij Sokolov (grigoryi1) looks drunk lol
• IEI - Really don't have an opinion. Didn't feel anyhing in particular. I've been watching simply_kenna (McKaelinn)'s videas in the past and I don't like her but I don't hate her either.
• LIE - No no no no. Such a contrast between Yurij Dud(bad vibes) and Sobolev(very nice reaction to him). There's this one guy who has a cat and talks about atom bombs and he was also ok.
• ILI - They were ok.
• SLE - Not sure about them. Only the guy who has pranked his sister was ok but not pleasant. TheDRZJ needs to chill. The asmr flight attendant was the weirdest thing I've seen in a while.
• LII - They were alright, seemed introverted. Nothing wrong with them.
• SEE - Idk
• ILE - Niceeeee vibes. Kawaii Kunicorn was cute.
• LSE - I like them. Lizaonair is soooo pretty, the guy who talks about hardware is nice.
• ESI - The guy I liked is here lol. Good vibes.
• SEI - I liked them. Esp Yelena Shejdlina, but they are all so cute and girly lol.
• IEE - I don't mind them. They are fine.
• ESE - Idk
• SLI - no opinion lol
• EIE - I like themmm.

Best were ILE,LSE
Worst were LIE,LSI,EIE

[Sol]

@Ida
The testing is useful when data is in the recommended format. Never say numbers, as if to say types in next messages - the key becomes opened. Say only types names. Concrete bloggers names also should be removed for same reason, and they are redundant as only generalized impression from a type is important. Use people only of one sex, not both.
Anyway, this test is secondary method. Video is what is needed 1st.

[naiad]

@Ida
The testing is useful when data is in the recommended format. Never say numbers, as if to say types in next messages - the key becomes opened. Say only types names. Concrete bloggers names also should be removed for same reason, and they are redundant as only generalized impression from a type is important. Use people only of one sex, not both.
Anyway, this test is secondary method. Video is what is needed 1st.

I fixed ittt, please read my mind now

[Sol]

I fixed ittt, please read my mind now

I'll read your type by video. And may try to guess your type's traits if you'll give results as it was recommended: the list of 16 types from best to worst by the said critetion.
Also remove text with bloggers names - they open the key. If you want to say impressions from concrete types (not bloggers) - place the types in random order, pls, but not how they are in key as this... opens the key.

[Shining]

I got :
ESE,SEI,EII,EIE,ILE,SLI,LIE,IEI,LSE,LII,ESI,SEE,SL E,IEE,ILI,LSI

[Sol]

shining was typed to ILE by video
this sorting was done after he saw the key. he tends to think himself as LII and lesser possible as ILE
would be good if he'd added the sorting he did befor he saw the key in the message above

[Shining]

shining was typed to ILE by video
this sorting was done after he saw the key. he tends to think himself as LII and lesser possible as ILE
would be good if he'd added the sorting he did befor he saw the key in the message above

I have done it fast the first time and without note so sorting was a bit random. Second time i remembered some of the keys so it probably influenced my new ranking.
Anyway my first ranking :
LII,EII,ESE,EIE, (the most i feel compatible)
SEI,ILE, (strong too, but less)
IEE,LSE,IEI,
ESI,SLI,ILI,SLE,LIE,SEE,LSI (bad to very bad)

For the video, i am not sure it's representative of me, i am too smiling compared to my more natural state. It was influenced by the format of video, where i was answering to random questions discovered on the moments. If it was more serious in the format like formal presentation, i would probably have adopted a more serious attitude and i feel more at ease in front of a camera than real people, because the camera don't judge me (and the ppl looking i don't see their eventual negative reactions so idgf), though i tend to be a bit random even on serious stuff because i don't tend to have real idea of what i am going to say before i begin to speak so it can be quite wtf sometimes like where i am sometimes readjusting what i just said, looking kind of insane from other ppl so most people won't see that, i'll stay in my shell unless i won't be judged/mocked for what i say, which is rare, not that i am all the time saying silly things though.
And considering relationship according to socionics predictions IRL, i still think i am more likely LII.

[Sol]

For the video, i am not sure it's representative of me

as the impressions gave only one type, not were too controversal, so the clip was good

> i tend to be a bit random even on serious stuff because i don't tend to have real idea of what i am going to say before i begin to speak

P style

[Shining]

as the impressions gave only one type, not were too controversal, so the clip was good

> i tend to be a bit random even on serious stuff because i don't tend to have real idea of what i am going to say before i begin to speak

P style

Yes but maybe it didn't give the good one. And tbh i prefer the idea to be ILE than LII, so i am not sure to be unbiased in my answers, to lean more toward ILE, like for this P stuff i am not so sure, though ideally it definitely is more interesting to come unprepared and just let the thoughts flow. I don't think it's impossible for LII to appreciate this way of being, even if more unlikely i guess. Think you are some type and it will become more true to you, independantly of the validity of this thought, so the traits are going to become more and more real to some extent of the ability of the brain to change in that way, even if it's not who you really are.

[Sol]

Yes but maybe it didn't give the good one.

The possibility that I get sure and wrong impression is low. Bad material gives contradictory impressions.

> And tbh i prefer the idea to be ILE than LII

The main issue is your behavior shifted to I. But it can be explaned by non-types factors and you noticed that befor those factors appeared the behavior was close to extraverted.

> I don't think it's impossible for LII to appreciate this way

Look at my examples of LII and ILE men. Try to feel which are more similar to you.

> Think you are some type and it will become more true to you, independantly of the validity of this thought, so the traits are going to become more and more real to some extent of the ability of the brain to change in that way, even if it's not who you really are.

Thinking yourself as wrong type will keep you in borders of real type anyway. The main thing which is changed - your perception of yourself, how you filter this information. Some surface behavior may become more contradictory, but mostly you'll behave as you like, naturally for you (especially when you are sure in yourself), but not according to texts in some books. I saw not a single time when people tried to play other types (as thought themselves such) - after some point of watching their behavior (not what they tell about themselves), communication with them, impressions from nonverbal - you'll notice significant contradictions, "strange" to be that type and will get doubts, then if you'll investigate that "strange" - you'll get another version.
For example, a girl thought herself Ne type for years and then stoped on EII. She said many things which fit good to descriptions of that type and I agreed on a short time. The "strange" at 1st I've noticed in our private discussion, - non-typical aggressive flirting/getting friends her style, some lack of courtesy with rude and unsuitable joking, redundant assertive moralizing in non-elegant style, the lack of understanding me where was evident with rude showing of being offenced. I said it's not EII, but mb ESI in what I've become sure later. But she fooled me at 1st, many other people, fooled herself for 3-4 years and still thinks EII despite all my arguments.

[Shining]

The possibility that I get sure and wrong impression is low. Bad material gives contradictory impressions.

> And tbh i prefer the idea to be ILE than LII

The main issue is your behavior shifted to I. But it can be explaned by non-types factors and you noticed that befor those factors appeared the behavior was close to extraverted.

> I don't think it's impossible for LII to appreciate this way

Look at my examples of LII and ILE men. Try to feel which are more similar to you.

> Think you are some type and it will become more true to you, independantly of the validity of this thought, so the traits are going to become more and more real to some extent of the ability of the brain to change in that way, even if it's not who you really are.

Thinking yourself as wrong type will keep you in borders of real type anyway. The main thing which is changed - your perception of yourself, how you filter this information. Some surface behavior may become more contradictory, but mostly you'll behave as you like, naturally for you (especially when you are sure in yourself), but not according to texts in some books. I saw not a single time when people tried to play other types (as thought themselves such) - after some point of watching their behavior (not what they tell about themselves), communication with them, impressions from nonverbal - you'll notice significant contradictions, "strange" to be that type and will get doubts, then if you'll investigate that "strange" - you'll get another version.
For example, a girl thought herself Ne type for years and then stoped on EII. She said many things which fit good to descriptions of that type and I agreed on a short time. The "strange" at 1st I've noticed in our private discussion, - non-typical aggressive flirting/getting friends her style, some lack of courtesy with rude and unsuitable joking, redundant assertive moralizing in non-elegant style, the lack of understanding me where was evident with rude showing of being offenced. I said it's not EII, but mb ESI in what I've become sure later. But she fooled me at 1st, many other people, fooled herself for 3-4 years and still thinks EII despite all my arguments.

Yeah and i noticed Ti use only later in my life like when i was 16 and began practicing poker who developped a lot my Ti-Ni-Te, before i have no real idea of what function i was using, if not Ti i was suspecting a P function, so Ti or Ne or Si but not of them seemed to really match in most circonstances.

Maybe a bit more like ILE, at least if i am comparing with my video, but i don't really know how i am interacting with people, it's for me different than interacting with a camera, i am more inert/calm/controlled/restrained i think with people.

If i really am Ne leading and i get convinced of it it will indeed become more real in more active form, instead of being of a more passive side of Ne (if i am Ne lead).

Just to clarify the feedback between Leading and Creative, how i see it for LII and ILE (when the creative is needed):
for LII, it would be some deep thoughts about a topic > Ti can't solve it by itself > use of Ne to generate ideas > Ti reevalute the ideas to see if 1 of them fits for the problem and keep going further into the topics if necessary
for ILE, generation of ideas > selection of 1 idea looking quite interesting > evaluation with Ti to establish and make the idea more intelligible, tentative to break the inconsistencies, refinement :
*if no apparent inconsistency > back to Ne and looking for potential improvement of the idea :
-if satisfied and the idea acquired her potential > come back step 1
-if more improvement added > go to Ti and repeat
*if apparent inconsistency > back step 1

[Sol]

Just to clarify the feedback between Leading and Creative, how i see it for LII and ILE (when the creative is needed):
for LII, it would be some deep thoughts about a topic > Ti can't solve it by itself > use of Ne to generate ideas > Ti reevalute the ideas to see if 1 of them fits for the problem and keep going further into the topics if necessary
for ILE, generation of ideas > selection of 1 idea looking quite interesting > evaluation with Ti to establish and make the idea more intelligible, tentative to break the inconsistencies, refinement

Something like.

[Shining]

Something like.

I don't know how INTj relates to this: after writing stuffs, there is a need to refine, use of a better wording to suppress redundancy, making the idea more intelligible. It sounds more like ILE. Does LII can be quite chaotic in their writing at first or their writing are already structured, and through Ti they are just expressing directly into writing without need to refine most of the time ? I am guessing everyone need refining to some degree, but this process is more needed in P.

[Sol]

Does LII can be quite chaotic in their writing at first

J types are not chaotic. LII prefer to have an initial model, some structure, and then find _new ideas_ which fit in it. It's like you have a machine and then think - what to add there else, how to improve the existing. Or you have a program algorithm and LII with a pleasure will think how to make it better.

> I am guessing everyone need refining to some degree, but this process is more needed in P.

Refining of the text is mostly relates to how to say the ideas you already have there - it's Ti work.

[Shining]

J types are not chaotic. LII prefer to have an initial model, some structure, and then find _new ideas_ which fit in it. It's like you have a machine and then think - what to add there else, how to improve the existing. Or you have a program algorithm and LII with a pleasure will think how to make it better.

> I am guessing everyone need refining to some degree, but this process is more needed in P.

Refining of the text is mostly relates to how to say the ideas you already have there - it's Ti work.

I relate more to LII i think. I am not caracterised by abundancy of ideas but more looking for ideas applied to something at least already started.

[Sol]

I relate more to LII i think.

To distinguish between mirror types is better to use other traits like dichotomies and IR. The difference between leading and creative is much lesser noticable for the typing and is easier for mistake. Dichotomies point to ILE more than LII. IR sympathies - to LII, but for this are better IRL people - type them, check impressions. At now you have contradictions to choose LII or ILE with assurance. I have no doubt in ILE, as I did not get from nonverbal what LII give me.