DEAD, I'm going to punch your fat head in...

[DEAD]

I'll get back to you..It's an interesting question. I often talk to my friends/sister about socionics but it's really hard to convince them that it's real or explain the difference between types etc. I guess it comes with practice, but we also need better resources than we already have.

It was all way too much for me at first to get my head around...(nvm why, it just was..). I was just happy when I discovered Rebelondeck's posts and probably read every single one he ever posted as well as screenshotted them...because he was CLEVER and he simplified socionics down to something that resembled science/ or a sort of general wisdom. Most of what I know about socionics I know from him..then there are my own observations from typing and also stuff I pick up from various people on here. But yeah I'll try to explain why you are possiblyy SEE later.

The problem is that people relying on 'vibes' and 'relations' alone too much kinda corrupts the overall theory's purpose and function in a sense if we are going by the elements and the systematic information as a whole. Yes, vibes might be helpful in some circumstances [if it's obvious that someone is X type, but I think that you need to go deeper than that. It's an amalgamation of factors, and not just a 'fart in the wind' guessing situation based on how someone makes you 'feel' when you interact with them.

I think you clicked onto Rebel 'cause he's LII (afaik, right?) His Ti gave you a sort of clarity that made sense to you and it was seen as being especially 'clever' in your eyes because you were looking for that clarity. Socionics is and can be simple to work out in terms of the system if you take time and break each individual element down. Applying it to reality? Yeah, that's a whole different story. It's usually not as successful all the time. Observations can definitely help to a degree, but they themselves are not definite, as experiences tend to vary. Yeah, you can get a general idea/consensus of observations but even then, there are discrepancies due to socionics being so subjective in itself.

This mere affirmation is interesting by itself.

It shows a strong needs to have something that is solid or maybe explanable in words which is to me a indication that you could be SLE over LSI.

The LSI's introverted axis Ti-Ni is more encline to accept "vibes" things than the SLE's extraverted axis Se-Fe, a suggestive Ni could repress "vibes" and argument based about intuition. Besides, you ask others their opinion which could be a proof that you have a better Fe than a LSI which doesn't like ask others for advices or help.

Yeah, I want things to make sense and I will search and dissect them in order for them to make sense, in terms of reality especially. I want to understand why things are the way they are and apply practicality and realism to them.

Yeah, vibes are too ethereal and not grounded and a good enough reason for me to accept, IMO.

Well, even people who are LSI ask for help on their type, so I don't think alone is a good way to define it, but I guess an LSI would be more confident in their base logic (Ti) than creative/HA logic (3D and 2D Ti), and putting an onus on it being accurate.

[Bethanyclaire]

I think you clicked onto Rebel 'cause he's LII (afaik, right?) His Ti gave you a sort of clarity that made sense to you and it was seen as being especially 'clever' in your eyes because you were looking for that clarity.

I don't have time to reply properly atm but I do relate to some of your comments. Socionics really needs to be studied at universities and made more academic or scientific for it to be more easily and readily applied to real life. It needs to be made more simple first of all...and once there is a more solid theory of the basic structures then it would be possible to branch off and study endless different aspects...it's messy atm. It was too messy for me. It just wasn't sitting right with me. It seemed like it was trying to say far too much about each different type. It also seemed divisive- boxing people into a type. Like you say, it seemed too subjective. I didn't like the moralising/ reductive overtone- I don't want to be told who I am, who I can be, who I will be. Socionics/ a theory can't possibly predict all of that.

Yes, Rebel was LII. I don't know what drew me to his comments at first. But I'm not the only one, he got many likes and comments. His articles are on socionics.com too and not many articles get accepted on there. I don't know who the site was set up by though. I think his job as an engineer gave him a good foundational knowledge for coming up with an alternative system to analyse behaviour of the the 16 different personalities and identify the types of relationships between them. (I can't rememeber what type of engineer but I know he observed people as part of his work). His main goal on the forum was to promote a more scientific approach to socionics. He also just seemed like a generally wise person, with a lot of general life experience to draw upon in making his observations- quite balanced even though he considered himself a stong Ti subtype and he thinks that a subtype causes a person issues..but that subytpe isn't necessarily fixed.

He helped me a lot. By reading his comments I feel like I have a very good baseline understanding of socionics. I don't think you can get that from reading socionics articles (I haven't read loads but I have read Gulenko's book, or parts of it and it is good but Rebel is better). Well, maybe you can but you'd need to read a lot. There are some people on here who seem to be comfortable with their understanding of socionics and I do think once you learn to type it gets a bit easier, because eventually your brain sees types (or doesn't see them when you're not sure of a type) and then you subconsciously make your own notes about what each type is like.

Socionics was far too overwhelming for me at first, a person with historical mental health problems. Rebel was a kind and clever guy who I think probably provided many people on the forum with a lot of much needed clarity. He also helped me a lot with my personal problems which is nothing short of a miracle in my eyes. Anyway, he seems to be gone now but thank you to him anyway.

edit: At first I found his comments a little difficult to digest..also his obervations can seem a little contradictory sometimes..in general..or contradictory to socionics ideas. But I realised he simply sees a lot of different sides to people, and his mind is able to separate the various contraditions that make up a person/ a type.

[Ibreen]

@DEAD try the website cognitive type. Although I’d admit it’s not MBTI anymore. It’s not Socionics either. But it’s a good starting point

some signals are dead on, some imo I had to think twice about. I’d finally go by vibes, after applying visual typing, because it doesn’t suit their lifestyle etc.

then there’s the argument that certain types gained their stereotypes after a lot of mistyping, therefore typing visually is better so that you can let go of these stereotypes. I think thats true but only to a certain extent, and I only trust myself to give a better judgment : P so how much you trust yourself to type yourself correctly also plays a role

[Ibreen]

If that’s you in the profile picture you look SEE soc-blind btw

[DEAD]

I don't have time to reply properly atm but I do relate to some of your comments. Socionics really needs to be studied at universities and made more academic or scientific for it to be more easily and readily applied to real life. It needs to be made more simple first of all...and once there is a more solid theory of the basic structures then it would be possible to branch off and study endless different aspects...it's messy atm. It was too messy for me. It just wasn't sitting right with me. It seemed like it was trying to say far too much about each different type. It also seemed divisive- boxing people into a type. Like you say, it seemed too subjective. I didn't like the moralising/ reductive overtone- I don't want to be told who I am, who I can be, who I will be. Socionics/ a theory can't possibly predict all of that.

Yeah, and it also needs to be assessed and confirmed as an actual scientific tool as well, if it has any actual real-world benefits that will help further things. The problem is that people can't and won't agree fully on what defines Socionics IMEs, and which system is actually the closest to something that can be claimed and used as a science. The boxing isn't a problem, the problem is 'is the box accurate?' 'Does this functionality closest fit to X or Y?' etc.

Inaccurate boxing is as bad as not boxing yourself in at all. It's not that I don't want to find my type, but I am just finding large discrepancies between the supposed type I get labelled as the most (SEE) and how I actually use the functions and what those functions mean, and how well I can use them, after some research.

Basing it all on vibes and how people 'act' just as bad as not looking at the definitions, and how each type is supposed to metabolize energy, according to and within the system. To me, it's mostly based upon IMEs, but yeah, there are some clues as to how people process IMEs through how they act, but it's not always accurate. Some people who have mental disorders etc are going to act differently and process the same functions in a manner that's different from someone who is totally healthy. And basing it off just the healthy people isn't gonna give us a full scope. We need both scopes assessed for more accuracy. More examples and test subjects.

I know that will take a lot of time and a lot of tests will need to be done, but I think that might help Socionics become more credible in a way.

Yes, Rebel was LII. I don't know what drew me to his comments at first. But I'm not the only one, he got many likes and comments. His articles are on socionics.com too and not many articles get accepted on there. I don't know who the site was set up by though. I think his job as an engineer gave him a good foundational knowledge for coming up with an alternative system to analyse behaviour of the the 16 different personalities and identify the types of relationships between them. (I can't rememeber what type of engineer but I know he observed people as part of his work). His main goal on the forum was to promote a more scientific approach to socionics. He also just seemed like a generally wise person, with a lot of general life experience to draw upon in making his observations- quite balanced even though he considered himself a stong Ti subtype and he thinks that a subtype causes a person issues..but that subytpe isn't necessarily fixed.

He helped me a lot. By reading his comments I feel like I have a very good baseline understanding of socionics. I don't think you can get that from reading socionics articles (I haven't read loads but I have read Gulenko's book, or parts of it and it is good but Rebel is better). Well, maybe you can but you'd need to read a lot. There are some people on here who seem to be comfortable with their understanding of socionics and I do think once you learn to type it gets a bit easier, because eventually your brain sees types (or doesn't see them when you're not sure of a type) and then you subconsciously make your own notes about what each type is like.

Yeah, being an engineer would help with systematic knowledge. And Socionics.com? I don't know about Rebel's contributions on there, but IMO, that site in general is a dumpster fire. It doesn't seem to be very reliable (or it's badly translated or something) in terms of the content in general. It's like some of the things I am reading generally contradicts things that I have read about before from other sources. How do we know who is exactly right, unless we actually investigate enough?

It's good that he contributes to things and in making socionics more like a science than just a bunch of ideas and a theory that doesn't translate fully to reality. It's good also that you have a more refined understanding of socionics through him, and Rebel helps you make sense of socionics. Assuming that your type is correct, I agree that it all tends to fall in place easier. The problem is when the interpretations start to a) not make sense b) contradict other ones too much/the system itself.

Socionics was far too overwhelming for me at first, a person with historical mental health problems. Rebel was a kind and clever guy who I think probably provided many people on the forum with a lot of much needed clarity. He also helped me a lot with my personal problems which is nothing short of a miracle in my eyes. Anyway, he seems to be gone now but thank you to him anyway.

edit: At first I found his comments a little difficult to digest..also his obervations can seem a little contradictory sometimes..in general..or contradictory to socionics ideas. But I realised he simply sees a lot of different sides to people, and his mind is able to separate the various contradictions that make up a person/ a type.

Observations are all about how you explain and organize them with regard to the system. LII Ti would be more inclined to see the 'different sides' over LSI Ti, I think.

@DEAD try the website cognitive type. Although I’d admit it’s not MBTI anymore. It’s not Socionics either. But it’s a good starting point

some signals are dead on, some imo I had to think twice about. I’d finally go by vibes, after applying visual typing, because it doesn’t suit their lifestyle etc.

then there’s the argument that certain types gained their stereotypes after a lot of mistyping, therefore typing visually is better so that you can let go of these stereotypes. I think that's true but only to a certain extent, and I only trust myself to give a better judgment : P so how much you trust yourself to type yourself correctly also plays a role

I'm not asking to be typed in another system that's not related to Socionics. I don't think that applying vibes is going to help in any way. Vibes are not the foundation of how people function. Yes, they may give some minor hints, but they don't really measure things well enough to tell us for certain that X is X and Y is Y. They can eliminate certain things, but I wouldn't them at all for accuracy and indefinite

Alright, so if a type (e.g. ESE, say) has been stereotyped to death because they have a wide smile or certain energy or whatever, how can you let go of the stereotypes when Vultology is basically an amalgamation of visual stereotypes put together to type people based upon how the act/look?

If that’s you in the profile picture you look SEE soc-blind btw

I still am none the wiser to how a picture of oneself can tell how a person measures logic, ethics, sensation, and intuition. Facial traits are not functions, and they are not showing the functions in use. I don't know how the hell you can tell that the generated picture I made on Artbreeder is a SEE soc-blind, lmfao.

[Ibreen]

@DEAD I’m not here to convince you maybe chill a little?

[Ibreen]

I can tell because I memorize visual cues from types and apply them. So when I look at a picture I reference 3 different celebrities that have a similar type. People look like their type, because after decades of posture and facial expressions, the face gets affected by it.

[Ibreen]

And these people have no physical features that are common with your picture. One of them is of a different ethnicity. But the same pointed look, the same posture etc. after years you pick it up easily

[DEAD]

I can tell because I memorize visual cues from types and apply them. So when I look at a picture I reference 3 different celebrities that have a similar type. People look like their type, because after decades of posture and facial expressions, the face gets affected by it.

How do you know they're all typed right?

Isn't Functions > VI more important? Socionics was founded and based on the functions, but it has expanded throughout the years. How a person actaully processes the information is more important than "Oh Elijah Wood is smiling, his eyes look Ni..." etc. I just think that you need a series of pictures of said person over time, and the so-called other same typed people to compare and contrast contradictions. You also need to define how the functions are shown in the face, but I don't think that it's always credible.

Learning the functions is one part, and seeing people in action and applying the theory to reality is another part. You can't really tell unless you know the theory, and unless you see people in practice as well, and you see how the cognitive functions match up to reality. Not just their faces. How they process information as well. I have always been skeptical of VI alone.

[Ibreen]

>how do you they’re all correctly typed

because I typed them. If you want standardized logic, go to a Te user.

>isn’t functions > VI more important?

yes but not online where everything you say is filtered through your own biased perception

> I just think you need a series of pictures of said person over time

yh. Which is what Cognitive Type does. But because people can’t accept their (sometimes) true typing that he had to separate the system even though it’s the same imo.

I just feel like you value Te too much for Socionics. Try big5 if it’s not working for you. At least then you won’t be throwing a fit every time someone tries to type you. Your need for external logical consistency is really apparent.
@DEAD

[DEAD]

>how do you they’re all correctly typed

because I typed them. If you want standardized logic, go to a Te user.

Because I typed them isn't a good answer. How did you type them? What is the logic you are using? What are your methods? X is X 'because I said so lol' isn't a good answer. It needs to be consistent and make sense. If you say something like X is X because y=x or something like that, then that makes sense. You can make up any bullshit you want and expect us to go along with it making sense. People are gonna ask questions, and expect you to answer them and make sense.

Or you can rephrase it to "I think I am correct because..."

>isn’t functions > VI more important?

yes but not online where everything you say is filtered through your own biased perception

Alright by that logic, I can easily disregard what you said: "because I said it doesn't make sense". I can argue that you being LSI 7w8 is a contradiction in on itself because the main traits of enneagram 7 (according to the Enneagram Institute) do not match Ti in socionics as base function, and are against the Wikisocion definition of an LSI:

Sevens are extroverted, optimistic, versatile, and spontaneous. Playful, high-spirited, and practical, they can also misapply their many talents, becoming over-extended, scattered, and undisciplined. They constantly seek new and exciting experiences, but can become distracted and exhausted by staying on the go. They typically have problems with impatience and impulsiveness. At their Best: they focus their talents on worthwhile goals, becoming appreciative, joyous, and satisfied.

* Basic Fear: Of being deprived and in pain

* Basic Desire: To be satisfied and content—to have their needs fulfilled
* Enneagram Seven with a Six-Wing: "The Entertainer"

* Enneagram Seven with an Eight-Wing: "The Realist

Key Motivations: Want to maintain their freedom and happiness, to avoid missing out on worthwhile experiences, to keep themselves excited and occupied, to avoid and discharge pain.

(https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/type-7)

As we can tell here, the general nature of an average enneagram 7 is that they can become unscattered, overextended and undisciplined, which is a commonly associated with the ExxP temperament. What is being described in the enneagram 7 description here is mostly aligned with Socionics Ne IxE, and low usage of Socionics Ti, could argue that’s 1D Ti there).

Ti PoLR - inconsistency and lack of logical structure and rejecting it. Ti Suggestive is basically seeking the structure of LxI (Ti base).

So, you can argue that the most likely types are IEE, and EIE, and occasionally SEE. If you want to argue that it’s Ne > 1D Ti then you could say, ILE.

So, we’ve established that these functions are low in an LSI. (Ne PoLR and Role Fi/Fe HA).

If we add in Gulenko’s LSI description, we can see how enneagram 7 begins to contradict with LSI:

Is distinguished by thoroughness, precision, and concreteness in professional matters. Carefully plans events, thoroughly examines and works out all the specifics. Puts work matters above sentiments. Takes all regulations into account. Keeps his personal things in order. He can always be relied on. Stoically endures life's hardships.

LSI is a person of strong will, diligent and enduring. He/she is insistent and demanding in execution and verification of tasks. Takes care of those who are confused and uncertain, explains to them how they can do their work. In his assessments - a sober realist, who does not tolerate infertile, unrealistic fantasies. Proves his point and supports his case citing numerous facts that he has collected.

In communication with friends and colleagues, he is polite and courteous. Can make an impression of an intelligent and well-mannered man. However, in closer, more familiar relations, he can be rather insensitive. Despite the fact that he is quite communicative in a small groups, periodically he needs to spend time alone. Has a tendency to be didactic, to deliver lengthy explanations on his understanding of a subject. May lecture on ethical topics.

What he deems himself capable of doing, he will also require from others. May become too deeply immersed in the details and the calculations, at which point he risks losing sight of the broader view. Uncompromising in his convictions. The fall of the ideals that he has previously followed treats as a personal tragedy. Distrustful of strangers and people about whom he knows too little. When he discovers some negative traits in another person, loses trust in him for a long period of time.

(https://www.wikisocion.net/en/index....ile_by_Gulenko)

Even the definition of what Ti is in a nutshell goes against most of Enneagram 7 as a whole:

The individual views reality through the lens of logic, immediately recognizing the correctness and appropriateness of things and their proper place in reality and in his system of views and behavior. He freely makes logical assertions, often exaggerated, about new information and experience. He holds highest those rules to which exceptions do not exist, and is a habitual critic of people or things that don't follow a set of rules, whether they are those accepted by the community, or his own, or even the other person's. Although he is able to adopt others' rules, his own are always the last word, and these are subject to continual refinement.

Often seen as "demanding", due to high standards.

An LSI would match 1 and 8 and maybe 5/6 based off the essence of Ti, and off how the Ti Se functions within their lives. Willpower, adopting rules, refining theories and using logic as the main viewpoint doesn’t sound very 7 at all.

See? It’s all over the place lol. Subjectively. Billy says this, Sean says that, Billy and Sean meet and disagree because they both think they’re correct and both want to argue their point. What do we have to argue against concretely that we can agree on? Nothing.

> I just think you need a series of pictures of said person over time

yh. Which is what Cognitive Type does. But because people can’t accept their (sometimes) true typing that he had to separate the system even though it’s the same imo.

So you’re actually admitting that your method is infallible and sometimes true? If separating the system and defining it is more accurate in terms of results and type… then what is the point of VI as a whole? Looking at the functions and looking at images are not the same thing lol. They re two totally different methods for figuring out ones type.

I just feel like you value Te too much for Socionics.

Try big5 if it’s not working for you. At least then you won’t be throwing a fit every time someone tries to type you. Your desire for external logical consistency is really apparent.

I'm not throwing a fit just because I disagree with you. I can see the sneaky ad hominen that you're trying to throw in there. You're trying to discredit me, because I am not aligning up to your own personal logic. I want my logic to make sense, and actually be realistic so I want my perception of the system to be realistic as well. I don't want some half-assed unproven ideas being passed off as facts and marker points when it needs work. When it needs broken down more and needs more evidence. I want to debunk reasoning and challenge things, and question them.

The problem with socionics as a whole is its lack of definitive objectivity, reasoning and agreement of what the definitions mean. Over here, you have Gulenko with Model G, Aushra the originator with Model A, Talanov with his version, Model T, Bukalov with Model B etc. Ben Vasleran has his own version of Model G, Ibrahim Tencer and Jack Oliver Aaron have their own takes on Model A etc.

Is Socionics defined as a series of systems that branch out of one another, centered around the concept of Socionics as a whole, but are their own separate systems/schools of knowledge?

Screenshot at Feb 18 16-41-30.png


Or is it one generalized theory with additions that run alongside each other in tandem and each contribution adds to it and makes the one theory/model better defined?
Screenshot at Feb 18 16-44-17.png

I've gotten the impression that it's both, when it should just be one or the other. It needs defined as a system/series of systems indefinitely.

That's the reason why the "BIG 5" is passed off easier than Socionics as something mroe legitimate is because it's been well-defined, the criterion has been set and it has been backed up by Phychologists and had Psychiatrists write papers on it. If Socionics is going to be more legit, it needs more universal definition, and by giving it more universal definition, Scienists can assess it and make a mainstream, more credible unit of assessment for measuring personality.

Individual subjectivity of definitions will never give Socionics full credibility as a “science”; if people want that, fair enough but if they do, we’re all going to have to look at and redefine objectively what Socionics is.

[Ibreen]

>because you typed them isn’t a good answer

its good enough for me, a Ti user, who only cares about things making sense to me

>it needs to be consistent and make sense

oh? To who, exactly? Please stop trying to force Te on me. It doesn’t have to make sense to anyone but myself. As I said, you clearly value Te.

>You can make up any bullshit you want and expect us to go along with it making sense. People are gonna ask questions, and expect you to answer them and make sense.

no ._. I’m not expecting anyone to get along with it. You put that expectation on yourself. If it doesn’t make sense to you, leave it.

>I can argue that you being LSI 7w8 is a contradiction in on itself because the main traits of enneagram 7 (according to the Enneagram Institute) do not match Ti in socionics as base function

please let’s not bring my type into this. I’m really not bothered. If it makes sense to me then I don’t care if it’s logically inconsistent to others.

>If Socionics is going to be more legit, it needs more universal definition, and by giving it more universal definition, Scienists can assess it and make a mainstream, more credible unit of assessment for measuring personality.


>Individual subjectivity of definitions will never give Socionics full credibility as a “science”; if people want that, fair enough but if they do, we’re all going to have to look at and redefine objectively what Socionics is.

This. This is it. No one who values Ti over Te would say this. Even EIEs have trouble with this, and they care a lot about appearing objective. You sound SEE, take it or leave it. I’m not going to continue this conversation because it’s not doing anything to my Ti, and tbh you sound pretty Ti PoLR

[DEAD]

>because you typed them isn’t a good answer

its good enough for me, a Ti user, who only cares about things making sense to me.

2D Ti.

>it needs to be consistent and make sense

oh? To who, exactly? Please stop trying to force Te on me. It doesn’t have to make sense to anyone but myself. As I said, you clearly value Te.

This sounds Te PoLR. I can tell you're really annoyed by the Ti, lol.

>You can make up any bullshit you want and expect us to go along with it making sense. People are gonna ask questions, and expect you to answer them and make sense.

no ._. I’m not expecting anyone to get along with it. You put that expectation on yourself. If it doesn’t make sense to you, leave it.

Only things that I can make sense of make sense to me. But I still want objectivity.

>I can argue that you being LSI 7w8 is a contradiction in on itself because the main traits of enneagram 7 (according to the Enneagram Institute) do not match Ti in socionics as base function

please let’s not bring my type into this. I’m really not bothered. If it makes sense to me then I don’t care if it’s logically inconsistent to others.

I see you don't want to argue with me because I made a very good point.

>If Socionics is going to be more legit, it needs more universal definition, and by giving it more universal definition, Scienists can assess it and make a mainstream, more credible unit of assessment for measuring personality.

>Individual subjectivity of definitions will never give Socionics full credibility as a “science”; if people want that, fair enough but if they do, we’re all going to have to look at and redefine objectively what Socionics is.

This. This is it. No one who values Ti over Te would say this. Even EIEs have trouble with this, and they care a lot about appearing objective. You sound SEE, take it or leave it. I’m not going to continue this conversation because it’s not doing anything to my Ti, and tbh you sound pretty Ti PoLR[/QUOTE]

I don't think I am Ti PoLR, I'm not actulaly rejecting any logic of the system and diagreeing with your own personal logic, which again brings me back to the point that if you disgaree with someone, you're Ti PoLR. You've just framed me as Ti POLR because I'm not agreeing with your own personal logic, which is always changing, or framing it. Two or three posts ago you were pretty set on Beta ST yourself. You also VI'd an AI generated pic, lol.

I realy don't use Fi as a creative function (on how it's defined), and like you said, I use "too much Te", so I'm not settling on SEE because I know it doesn't make much sense at all, according to what I know about IMEs in Model A. I'll just go back to LxE, like I thought as a second choice on another thread. Or SLE, too bad.

[Sapphire]

>I can argue that you being LSI 7w8 is a contradiction in on itself because the main traits of enneagram 7 (according to the Enneagram Institute) do not match Ti in socionics as base function

please let’s not bring my type into this. I’m really not bothered. If it makes sense to me then I don’t care if it’s logically inconsistent to others.

Explain how it makes sense to you?

[Ibreen]

Explain how it makes sense to you?

Type descriptions are one thing and function descriptions are another. If you’re only going to go by type descriptions, you can really mistype people. Many of the terms can mean different things to different people. IEIs will see me as extroverted and fun. While a SEE will see me as rigid and stubborn.


then, taking motivation, which is the real essence of enneagram, rather than type descriptions, is also important. An ISFP 4 will look way different from an IEE 4. Or an SLE 8 and a ILI 8. Even though they have some things in common, going by appearances will cause mistyping.

mine is 7w8. 90% of my motivation for doing things is to avoid pain. Now I’m not going to break down how I deal with that on the Internet. So I hope I made my reasoning clear enough, as to how I got to my type. I’m not really looking for someone to retype me, unless the actually see a behavior that is contradictory to my typing on this forum. I’ll assess it then and see if it makes sense. If it doesn’t then I won’t accept it and move on.

[DEAD]

Type descriptions are one thing and function descriptions are another. If you’re only going to go by type descriptions, you can really mistype people. Many of the terms can mean different things to different people. IEIs will see me as extroverted and fun. While a SEE will see me as rigid and stubborn.

Alright, so type descriptions aren't a more reliable method than VI, and looking at people's features doesn't mistype them? Alright! You're trying way too hard to bend your logic to make something that isn't going to work, work. And your overall lack of explanations doesn't help in that matter either. You're just cherry-picking things on a surface level to appeal to yourself and are not showing a real understanding of the theory.

Also, how many IEI and SEE have you had to sample to confirm that? Are you basing these off experiences that work and fit into the system or are you assuming these things?

then, taking motivation, which is the real essence of enneagram, rather than type descriptions, is also important. An ISFP 4 will look way different from an IEE 4. Or an SLE 8 and a ILI 8. Even though they have some things in common, going by appearances will cause mistyping.

VI is literally going by appearances, so why are you criticizing a method that is 'going by appearances' and say that it will cause mistyping when that's literally what the system you currently use does?

mine is 7w8. 90% of my motivation for doing things is to avoid pain. Now I’m not going to break down how I deal with that on the Internet. So I hope I made my reasoning clear enough, as to how I got to my type. I’m not really looking for someone to retype me, unless the actually see a behavior that is contradictory to my typing on this forum. I’ll assess it then and see if it makes sense. If it doesn’t then I won’t accept it and move on.

No, it's not clear enough. You literally posted a generic sentence here. What is your process for avoiding pain? Is it linked to your Ti - Se? How, as an LSI does a 7, a contradicting type even work within the psyche logically? Are you sure you're not a mistyped 1?

You're not gonna break it down because you don't have a good argument for either. You don't really sit down and think about it. If you had good reasons, you wouldn't be gaslighting me or being so vague.

[Ibreen]

@DEAD I wasn’t talking to you please fuck off

[DEAD]

@DEAD I wasn’t talking to you please fuck off

It's my thread, and you started talking here. If you don't want tagged or called out anymore, then gtfo off my thread.

[Vis]

Other people cannot give you the "right Ti". It's introverted logic. It's your logic. Nobody else is you. You have to come up with your own Ti.

By (forcefully) demanding answers from others, you are actually using Se, as well as abusing your demonstrative Te in a bullying way (even though it's not your intention since you are Fi PoLR. Te without Fi guidance can be a brutal force that knows no stop).

Ti in SLE is more about tactical/strategy. Play a team sport, get a job in sales, etc. can be good ways to develop Ti. These can also help train your role function Ne by getting to know other people's intention and needs. Role function is a pain to train, but can be the saving grace when you've driven yourself to a dead end using valued functions alone.

Once again for any beta STs who's without a proper father figure, I recommend Jordan Peterson. Aside from supreme Fe, he also has deep Ni intuition. But be careful with extreme cult followers or political views.

[DEAD]

Other people cannot give you the "right Ti". It's introverted logic. It's your logic. Nobody else is you. You have to come up with your own Ti.

Yeah that’s true but it still needs to make sense regardless of who’s logic it is. You know? It needs to be consistent and follow along.

By (forcefully) demanding answers from others, you are actually using Se, as well as abusing your demonstrative Te in a bullying way (even though it's not your intention since you are Fi PoLR. Te without Fi guidance can be a brutal force that knows no stop).

Yeah I can be pretty forceful at times but I don’t see a problem with that, if it gets results and things done then it works.

Ti in SLE is more about tactical/strategy. Play a team sport, get a job in sales, etc. can be good ways to develop Ti. These can also help train your role function Ne by getting to know other people's intention and needs. Role function is a pain to train, but can be the saving grace when you've driven yourself to a dead end using valued functions alone.

Yeah even making music and figuring out how a music making system works. And figuring out how to play an instrument is good too. Video games, definitely sports and sales too.

Both my Fi and Ne are pretty shitty but I guess I do bring that in part down to age as well.

If you look at older SLE, they are a lot more mature and well rounded than younger ones. I chalk that up to developmental and maturity levels as well as life experience too.

Once again for any beta STs who's without a proper father figure, I recommend Jordan Peterson. Aside from supreme Fe, he also has deep Ni intuition. But be careful with extreme cult followers or political views.

I’m on the fence with Peterson. From what I’ve saw of him, I don’t think he’s complete bs but I do think that he’s still a bit bs. I don’t agree with him a lot of the time. And a lot of people argue over him being NT, and some LSI but that’s another topic for another time.

[EIE H]

No one is ever going to give you enough proof so it's a black hole. You say you're SLE so just stick with that. The more you try to convince people of something, the more they will doubt you because it comes off insecurity, validation seeking, and self-doubt, which lends itself to people not trusting your self-perceptions. This applies to most other things too.

[DEAD]

Lots of talking and random I-think-I-am's. Try really recording your day so that you'll have proof

Nah fuck that shit lol. I don't really care that much if I'm honest.

No one is ever going to give you enough proof so it's a black hole. You say you're SLE so just stick with that. The more you try to convince people of something, the more they will doubt you because it comes off insecurity, validation seeking, and self-doubt, which lends itself to people not trusting your self-perceptions. This applies to most other things too.

It's a catch 22, you say you're X, people want proof but when you give proof you're not that type. Whatever, I'll just be SLE then. This whole thing's stretched on long enough, and I can't be arsed with it anymore. One side says X, the other says Y and I say Z. Questionnaires can only do as much as they allow you to do as well. Same with videos. Same with photos. As far as I'm concerned, it's about how you process information first of all, and judging by that, I am verging on SLE > SEE. I think that I have enough data to judge that, based on what I know about the theory.

[DEAD]

You don't really wanna know the answer and this whole thread is just for attention - got it

It's too much effort to film a Vlog, lol. One day's not gonna tell the answer. If you want a more accurate answer, then you'd need to do that over a week and assess it for any consistences/inconsistencies in how you think. You'd need to dedicate to it, 'cause every day is gonna be diferent but how you cope with that week mentally is gonna be similar/the same despite the changing circumstances.

Even then, people will still disagree with your assessment. Yeah, Socionics is pretty subjective so it's up to you in the end, tbh. You can listen to people, and you can come to your own conclusions as well. Or you can just listen to the masses. At the end of the day, it's your type and you can have the final say on the matter. I think at this point, as long as I have solid reasoning for my type, then it shouldn't really matter. You can only give me so much, and I can only do so much.

Your answer is one answer, and mine is another. We may agree, we may disagree.

[DEAD]

Okay now you're saying a lot of things. Let's be clear here:
1. OF COURSE it's better to do it for a considerable amount of time, like maybe a week or a month.
2. It doesn't have to necessarily be a vlog, you can just make a journal
3. Who the fuck cares about people disagreeing
The important thing is for you to obtain objective proof that you (or other people) can work with.
Why do you need this? You need this because other people's observations of you is not enough for you. Why is that? Because you want to build a narrative for yourself and you won't believe them anyway. And so I throw you the responsibility - record your thoughts/actions and other relevant details that have ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Then use that information while you look into the IMEs and whatever descriptions you have. Now you cannot say "uh no I'm ___ so this description applies to me!" when there is ACTUAL PROOF that you aren't. That way you won't waste your time and no one would waste their time caring about you. New people would care and answer you but at the end of the day you are just wasting their time because you actually don't listen to them. You are acting. I mean sure, tell yourself you are SLE and tell everyone that it's all about the IMEs blah blah but some people have already told you what they think and repeating the question for the nth time won't necessarily give you a different answer.


I think you aren't SLE. There I just disagreed with you. And it doesn't even fucking matter. It's just fucking three letters - S L E, now what does it mean for you? What is its use? After you know the answer, so what? This message goes for everyone here. People have typed me several things and it didn't change who I am. I mean I could be some random type in Model A or Model G or whatever fucking model there would be in the future but they are just labels and really doesn't make me who I am. You shouldn't even think much about your type all the time, that's just mental retardation. I don't know what you're going to use this for but what I'm saying is there are a LOT of information that you can get in this world but it doesn't mean you have to pay attention to them even if they are 'right'.

I'm trying to be a cool and chill mod - this is the only reason why I'm not even closing this thread yet. But if I were a dictator, I totally would

I don't think about my type all of the time. I don't even think about Socionics most of the time, like I have better things to do. I'm just responding to all the replies. But yeah, objective proof is better than just talking about the types, but because Socionics is so subjective, what someone does has different interpretations by different people because no-one can agree lol. Unless you're a literal stereotype of showing X type/functions, then no-one is gonna agree 100% on someonee's type, but I suppose "objective proof" would limit the number of types. Again, until Socionics actually has defined definitions, no-one is totally gonna agree on things.

I don't care much about descriptions, tbh. Everyone is acting, socionics is acting at the end of the day. Everyone is X 'cause Y, Z and A. All the type descriptions are just roles anyway. No one fits them 100%, even the extremely good examples. You can think one thing and I can think another. No one really listens to anyone anyway, this is an internet forum.

Lmao, I was gonna close this thread, but I knew you were gonna respond anyway. I don't even know why this thread is still open tbh. Probably cause Sol replied and I wanted something to argue about, forgot how old it was. Alright, I'm closing it now. Can't be bothered with it anymore. You said your stuff, and I half agree with you on some points. Others not so much so let's just agree to disagree 'cause I'm getting fed up, and I'm just gonna say I am SLE or whatever. This is now getting a waste of time and nothing fruitfully logical or interesting is coming from it.