Yea definitely a withdrawn type, I go with 5 because I can't identify with the 9 basics. I do seem to seek outside reassurance and am very unsure of setting my opinions in stone, sadly.Originally Posted by msnobody
Yea definitely a withdrawn type, I go with 5 because I can't identify with the 9 basics. I do seem to seek outside reassurance and am very unsure of setting my opinions in stone, sadly.
Many years of introspection back when all I knew was that I was an enneagram 4 and my intuition was introverted. By the time I got to socionics and read just a little bit I was so sure of my type that I didn't care to hear other's opinions. I think my typing thread was one of the most short lived on this forum. Not sure if I have those bragging rights but I am claiming them until someone proves me wrong.
My only real confusion was due to the j/p thingy. I had always self typed by cognitive functions in MBTI so I assumed I would be INFj in socionics but it didn't match up to my knowledge of self although I could relate to both descriptions of INFJ/P in MBTI. I could not relate to the EII descriptions. The whole function stack was off and not how I experience them. When I read IEI it was a given that that was my best fit.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
That sounds like it was easy lol, I guess years is quite a while though.Many years of introspection back when all I knew was that I was an enneagram 4 and my intuition was introverted. By the time I got to socionics and read just a little bit I was so sure of my type that I didn't care to hear other's opinions. I think my typing thread was one of the most short lived on this forum. Not sure if I have those bragging rights but I am claiming them until someone proves me wrong.
My only real confusion was due to the j/p thingy. I had always self typed by cognitive functions in MBTI so I assumed I would be INFj in socionics but it didn't match up to my knowledge of self although I could relate to both descriptions of INFJ/P in MBTI. I could not relate to the EII descriptions. The whole function stack was off and not how I experience them. When I read IEI it was a given that that was my best fit.
I can see Ni base for myself, not sure if it's weird that when I was doing the MBTI cognitive functions I always thought I was Ti dom. A lot of the IEI male descriptions sound good but I can't say I'm that sensitive, perhaps brought on from life experiences. Are you kind of a chameleon? lol
I vibe with the lizard people!
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Queen of the lizards, frogs and bugsI vibe with the lizard people!
Only bugs allowed are, dragonflies, butterflies, ladybugs, scarabs and spiders. The rest are unwelcome!
*hates worms*
*I may have left a bug out of what is acceptable to me but I don't think so. Lizards and frogs are cute.
Edit:! Fireflies, how could I forget the fireflies.
Last edited by Aylen; 07-01-2016 at 11:26 PM.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Nth-ed that you come across as nervous.What do you think of Ne as an IE, out of curiosity?
[derail]
My typing thread was 7 posts.* Fight meMany years of introspection back when all I knew was that I was an enneagram 4 and my intuition was introverted. By the time I got to socionics and read just a little bit I was so sure of my type that I didn't care to hear other's opinions. I think my typing thread was one of the most short lived on this forum. Not sure if I have those bragging rights but I am claiming them until someone proves me wrong.
(snip)
*I continued thinking about things afterwards, just not in threads.
[/derail]
Reason is a whore.
I will need a clear side picture in order to know for sure
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
It's ok, it can be useful sometimes for certain activities, new possibilities(that might not be relative seeming, but end up being so) are good to consider occasionally. Sometimes it is useless, but everything can be.Nth-ed that you come across as nervous.
[derail]
My typing thread was 7 posts.* Fight me
*I continued thinking about things afterwards, just not in threads.
[/derail]
I fail to see how that would help lol
Last edited by Chakram; 07-01-2016 at 11:48 PM.
So what do you think @GuavaDrunk ?
That's more like 6w5 than a 5. The ILI 5s don't search for outside reassurance.
6 is an attachment type :: seeks reassurance, negotiation with others, balance of viewpoints (integration to 9).
5 is competence type :: seeks validation of their knowledge and competence, or correction with information they didn't take into account if they are wrong.
Fives are thus more self-sufficient. 6w5s may mistake their five wing for main type but absence of 5-ness shows.
Yes I haven't researched enneagram much. My main concern currently is trying to figure out my socionics type, then perhaps more enneagram since they are intertwined to an extent, are you thinking ILI?
I wasn't thinking of any type. You do sound intuitive in how you make these assumptive associations that have no direct basis.
Which assumptive associations, that I thought you were thinking ILI? That's because you said this "The ILI 5s don't search for outside reassurance."
Or on enneagram type, which I haven't looked into much?
Which is exactly the assumptive association that sensing types are very careful to make.
I haven't typed you as ILI. Yet you made this leap in your mind "you were thinking ILI" that was never actually made.
Nothing specific atm, but I strongly second looking into e6 whenever you get to enneagram.
Reason is a whore.
I will and if you get any ideas, I would gladly hear them.
Ok so quick question for anyone, is it normal for an IEI to seem like a logical type? Whenever I ask the people who know me pretty well to pick out information elements for me, just having them read the elements and stuff, they normally pick Ti and/or Te, and either Ni or Ne. Granted these people don't know much about socionics other than what I've given them to read. I know you guys think I seem pretty friendly from the video, and for the most part I think I am, I'm definitely not like that all the time though. Anyways I think irrational seems very likely for me though.
No
Actually yes, a lot of them type themselves as Ti egos when they first learn of mbti or socionics, especially the Ni subs. They tend to have accentuated Ti and can have a relatively cold demeanor.
This myth comes from MBTI where some idiot once got the idea that INFJs are the smartest most logical ethical type. Of course this is all bs and there's no basis for it.
.
Last edited by maniac; 07-12-2016 at 05:56 PM. Reason: wrong threaddd
Based on what others have told you, do you seem like a logical type?
No, the only ones that have thought I'm logical are people that dont have a lot of knowledge about socionics.
she's an IEE so that question doesn't apply
or you could just meet a few IEI-Nis and learn that you are wrong
That is interesting, I had typed myself as a Ti base when first getting into it and was fairly convinced of that for a while, only recently realizing this might be wrong with the input of other people.
Of course some of those inputs also agreed on the Ti ego lol.
Why would IEI-Nis be any better at Ti than any other type that has 2D valued Ti? It simply makes no sense.
I am not, but if I was an IEE, IEE also has 2D valued Te so according to your logic, they would also seem more logical. But you don't think this because you're not too smart are you?
That's how I type
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
There have been some discussions on this 'phenomenon' before - that an especially pronounced hidden agenda may be mistaken for base or even some permutation of creative function. For some IEIs on this forum this meant trying to type themselves as either INTp or INTj to the point that there was an entire discussion posted about this in the early days of this forum: IEI: hybrid type of INTj and INTp. This was most pronounced with the far-side Ni-subtype IEIs whose creative Fe was so strongly suppressed by their base function that they turn into a 'rolling ball' of Ni-Ti and at cursory glance could seem logical.
I didn't say stronger, I said accentuated-- meaning it's of stronger focus to the person. They seem more analytical and less expressive. I don't believe the theory can really account for these types of deviations but it's been a pretty widely known idea that being dominant subtype leads to accentuation of the mobilizing. There are several IEI-Nis on the forum that demonstrate this pretty well.
yeah... Maybe if you were IEE-Ne. You obviously missed that part.I am not, but if I was an IEE, IEE also has 2D valued Te so according to your logic, they would also seem more logical. But you don't think this because you're not too smart are you?
Edit: and I specifically said this was notable with IEIs, not IEEs (though one could argue it is)
I dont believe that subtypes makes a huge difference, or that they even exist. And if they did it would not make the type have stronger T. Again youre making completely illogical statements.
So from that post it sounds like I could be one of those outliers,thanks for sharing this, I was beginning to think something like this couldn't exist.
His logic makes sense, I don't see how you can believe in a system such as socionics and not believe there are some deviations within a type, that's kind of silly.I dont believe that subtypes makes a huge difference, or that they even exist. And if they did it would not make the type have stronger T. Again youre making completely illogical statements.
100% T type
I want to say SLI final
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Ofc every person of each type is not the same,but that doesn't mean there has to be socionics subtypes to explain it. And lets say an IEI-Ni their Ni is stronger and Fe is weaker. How does this affect their Ti? It doesnt. an ethical types Fe can not be weaker than their logical function. They can try and use their logical function more but theyre not better at it.
Differences in types can be explained by enneagram and how theyre brought up etc
What? Weren't you thinking ILI? SLI hasn't even been brought up lol.
I believe @Contra said accentuated functions can occur, not that they would be significantly stronger. Yes I think people of the same type could have slight variances in the strength of their functions. There is nothing that says one INFp can't have stronger Ti or Fe than another INFp, it would probably still be close, but different none the less.
Also for @Chakram
"Carl Jung wrote that for a logical type ethical functions become suppressed, and that an unconscious grouping of functions arises in accordance to the conscious contents of functions, for example, the unconsciousness of a sensing type manifests primarily as a suppression of intuition. From C. Jung's deductions and conclusions about the relationships between functions of mental and vital rings (conscious and unconscious - by Jung), it becomes evident that with excitation of an ethical function there is suppression of logical one, and with excitation of sensing function there is suppression of an intuitive one. This happens not only on mental, but also in vital level of EIM model. If, for example, intuition is strengthened, it is strengthened in both orientations - introverted and extroverted, which also applies to other functions. Thus, with excitation of intuition of possibilities (Ne) of IEE model, the intuition of time (Ni) is also strengthened, and simultaneously both sensing functions (Se and Si) become inhibited. With excitation of ethics of relationships (Fi) there is a concurrent suppression of structural and business logic (Ti and Te).
Carl Jung has also noted that logical functions can be easily combined with intuition, but never with the feeling ones. Intuition, same as sensing, is not in opposition to logical functions as are feeling functions, that compete with logical ones. Thus, the excitation of intuitive functions in our example of type IEE correspondingly slows down the functions of ethics of relations and ethics of emotions (Fi and Fe) and, respectively, excited both functions of structural and business logic (Ti and Te)."
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Meged-Ovcharov
There is nothing in typology what says about only "slight variances". The main thing typology says - a man has one function stronger than his other, for example T vs F. It does not says how much is this balance and how strong in absolute value the function is. Some people may to have a function significantly stronger than other people of same type. Most people are similar and live in similar conditions - so you don't see this difference, but it's possible.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
