# i get get my true socionics type



## chad0 (Feb 7, 2015)

*i cant get my true socionics type*

iv taken a few test and the answers always comes out different how can i find my true socionics type?

ok so basically at first and formost i am contemplative like realy contemplative i spend 99.99% inside my mind i have a big imagination and am always analyzing things then i am quite messy and unorginized my room is always in a mess, and at school i always have uncompleted tasks ect..socially i am quite shy but with friends i am energetic and often speak about nonsense im laid back and never takes things seriously around people im always coming up with new ideas to speak about some of it is realy absurd and crazy.then with family i am quite energetic and often make jokes and am realy playfull so yea what am i?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

chad0 said:


> iv taken a few test and the answers always comes out different how can i find my true socionics type?


If you go into the What's My Type sub forum and fill out the questionnaire, some people may give their opinions.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

chad0 said:


> iv taken a few test and the answers always comes out different how can i find my true socionics type?
> 
> ok so basically at first and formost i am contemplative like realy contemplative i spend 99.99% inside my mind i have a big imagination and am always analyzing things then i am quite messy and unorginized my room is always in a mess, and at school i always have uncompleted tasks ect..socially i am quite shy but with friends i am energetic and often speak about nonsense im laid back and never takes things seriously around people im always coming up with new ideas to speak about some of it is realy absurd and crazy.then with family i am quite energetic and often make jokes and am realy playfull so yea what am i?


4D Ni (not necessarily in ego) but yeah do fill out a questionnaire in the subforum


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

chad0 said:


> iv taken a few test and the answers always comes out different how can i find my true socionics type?
> 
> ok so basically at first and formost i am contemplative like realy contemplative i spend 99.99% inside my mind i have a big imagination and am always analyzing things then i am quite messy and unorginized my room is always in a mess, and at school i always have uncompleted tasks ect..socially i am quite shy but with friends i am energetic and often speak about nonsense im laid back and never takes things seriously around people im always coming up with new ideas to speak about some of it is realy absurd and crazy.then with family i am quite energetic and often make jokes and am realy playfull so yea what am i?


Your short self-description is most alike the EP temperament: Temperament - Wikisocion

Finding your type beyond taking test, you'd have to sit down and think about your life history to figure out what kind of lifestyles, attitudes, and ways of thinking are most natural for you and most prevalent in your life. No way around it without some introspection  Then, carefully read through all type profiles and see which profiles are similar and which ones are nothing like you. You won't get everything to align. You're not looking for _the perfect fit_ where every single little detail about a type aligns to with your daily habits -- you're looking for a type where with most of the traits being similar to how you are.

Besides type profiles, Reinin dichotomies can help you discover your likely types.
Reinin dichotomies - Wikisocion
Simplified Reinin Dichotomy Test


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

myst91 said:


> 4D Ni (not necessarily in ego) but yeah do fill out a questionnaire in the subforum


I wouldn't say any of the things mentioned are conclusively Ni.

The daydreaming is a stereotype. Analysing is too vague, and technically wrong. Spending a lot of time in the mind is introversion.



cyamitide said:


> Reinin dichotomies - Wikisocion
> Simplified Reinin Dichotomy Test


...and I'm an ILI according to yet another test.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fried Eggz said:


> I wouldn't say any of the things mentioned are conclusively Ni.
> 
> The daydreaming is a stereotype. Analysing is too vague, and technically wrong. Spending a lot of time in the mind is introversion.


You misunderstood - 4D Ni can mean Ne creative too, not just Ni base, I could not decide if OP was that or not, I was just lazy to type out all that. I could have also said INxx.

The other possibility is Ne base, it is hard to say from just a few lines. Also all that is assuming that OP did describe the things most relevant to trends about how his/her information processing really works and not just cherrypicked a few traits


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fried Eggz said:


> ...and I'm an ILI according to yet another test.


Out of curiosity: which reinin dichotomies do you identify with that would make you ILI? And how did you decide to go from ILI to LSI (if you ever typed ILI)? You can also answer in PM if you think this is too off topic here.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

myst91 said:


> You misunderstood - 4D Ni can mean Ne creative too, not just Ni base, I could not decide if OP was that or not, I was just lazy to type out all that. I could have also said INxx.
> 
> The other possibility is Ne base, it is hard to say from just a few lines. Also all that is assuming that OP did describe the things most relevant to trends about how his/her information processing really works and not just cherrypicked a few traits


That still doesn't explain why you thought 4D Ni.



myst91 said:


> Out of curiosity: which reinin dichotomies do you identify with that would make you ILI?


Negativist and Democratic. I can see my Positivist and Aristocratic side, but the way they are typically worded don't describe how I see myself at all. There are a few other reinin dichotomies that I'm 50-50 on as well; Yielding/Obstinate and Judicious/Decisive.

Honestly, the Reinin Dichotomy descriptions are just as off-base as most type descriptions.



myst91 said:


> And how did you decide to go from ILI to LSI (if you ever typed ILI)? You can also answer in PM if you think this is too off topic here.


My shift was a slow but sure realisation that I valued Ti. Then the Ne vulnerable fell into place, and then suddenly typology became a lot more easy to understand. I had to really think about Fe to realise I valued it.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fried Eggz said:


> That still doesn't explain why you thought 4D Ni.


Introversion, intuitive.




> Negativist and Democratic. I can see my Positivist and Aristocratic side, but the way they are typically worded don't describe how I see myself at all. There are a few other reinin dichotomies that I'm 50-50 on as well; Yielding/Obstinate and Judicious/Decisive.
> 
> Honestly, the Reinin Dichotomy descriptions are just as off-base as most type descriptions.


I'm curious how you define your Positivist and Aristocratic side.

I myself can see both Positivism and Negativism in me if going by the descriptions. Also I think enneagram can influence this. If I define Positivism and Negativism by the core definitions of them, that is, how they build concepts then I'm definitely a Positivist however. My expressions can look Negativist and I can definitely focus on what's missing, otherwise.

If I define Democratic vs Aristocratic also by the core definition of first seeing people's qualities as coming from being in a group or from being an individual then I can definitely see Aristocratic for myself too. It's done via a different way of thinking for ST than for NF's, though, I think. 

Otherwise I don't usually trust people's typing via Reinin either because looking at how people really think is harder - in most cases you cannot figure this out without having the person telling you with a good awareness of themselves - than just going by those descriptions which do not actually work to match the Reinin dichotomies with type.




> My shift was a slow but sure realisation that I valued Ti. Then the Ne vulnerable fell into place, and then suddenly typology became a lot more easy to understand. I had to really think about Fe to realise I valued it.


How do you define Fe and valuing it? Really curious 

I absolutely relate to having a lot of bits of the theory fall into place when I got my typing right.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Negativism: I'm a massive cynic, sceptic, pessimist and I assume the worst in people.

Positivism: I see comparisons/similarities far more than opposites/differences. I don't "flip to the other side of the coin." I've also had discussions with Zamyatin about motives that really showed the contrast between me as a positivist and him as a negativist.

As for Aristocratic, I do attribute traits to people according to groups. I often criticise myself for using my own homemade stereotypes.



myst91 said:


> Introversion, intuitive.


But it naturally follows that if you say 4D Ni, then you mean that you saw 4D Ni. Not something that results in 4D Ni.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> Your short self-description is most alike the EP temperament: Temperament - Wikisocion
> 
> Finding your type beyond taking test, you'd have to sit down and think about your life history to figure out what kind of lifestyles, attitudes, and ways of thinking are most natural for you and most prevalent in your life. No way around it without some introspection  Then, carefully read through all type profiles and see which profiles are similar and which ones are nothing like you. You won't get everything to align. You're not looking for _the perfect fit_ where every single little detail about a type aligns to with your daily habits -- you're looking for a type where with most of the traits being similar to how you are.
> 
> ...


Yeah, you are not looking for THE type, but for A "best fit type". Just a bit of clarification.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Ixim said:


> Yeah, you are not looking for THE type, but for A "best fit type". Just a bit of clarification.


I thought you said yours was changing soon lol


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> I thought you said yours was changing soon lol


Soon? Soon is soon(tm), what can I say? I am learning from the best (EA, Blizzard) :wink: .


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Ixim said:


> Soon? Soon is soon(tm), what can I say? I am learning from the best (EA, Blizzard) :wink: .


Lmao. Hey, wanna start an e-company with me? We can be professional thread hijackers. When someone doesn't like where a thread is is headed, they hire us, and then we go in and start talking about some weird tangent lol.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fried Eggz said:


> Negativism: I'm a massive cynic, sceptic, pessimist and I assume the worst in people.
> 
> Positivism: I see comparisons/similarities far more than opposites/differences. I don't "flip to the other side of the coin." I've also had discussions with Zamyatin about motives that really showed the contrast between me as a positivist and him as a negativist.
> 
> As for Aristocratic, I do attribute traits to people according to groups. I often criticise myself for using my own homemade stereotypes.


Yeah, I'm also about comparisons more than about contrasts. That's the core of that Reinin dichotomy yeah. Heh why criticize yourself for grouping people? It's not PC enough? lol




> But it naturally follows that if you say 4D Ni, then you mean that you saw 4D Ni. Not something that results in 4D Ni.


Do you understand what 4D Ni means at all?


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

myst91 said:


> Heh why criticize yourself for grouping people? It's not PC enough? lol


Because stereotypes are often incorrect a lot of the time.



myst91 said:


> Do you understand what 4D Ni means at all?


Yes, I do. If you see Ni using the time parameter, then you've seen 4D Ni. If you see an intuitive who is likely introverted, then you haven't seen 4D Ni. You just believe it's there. There's a big difference between directly observing something and not.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fried Eggz said:


> Because stereotypes are often incorrect a lot of the time.


I only go by what I see, tbh, so if someone's dressed as a homeless person then they are a homeless person 99.99% of the time but I won't assume too much beyond that.




> Yes, I do. If you see Ni using the time parameter, then you've seen 4D Ni. If you see an intuitive who is likely introverted, then you haven't seen 4D Ni. You just believe it's there. There's a big difference between directly observing something and not.


4D Ni means INxx, nothing more, nothing less. It does not mean *valued* Ni. Simple as that.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

myst91 said:


> 4D Ni means INxx, nothing more, nothing less. It does not mean *valued* Ni. Simple as that.


I didn't say valued.

If you see a soldier and hear a tank, you don't say, "I saw a tank" because you didn't see a tank. Likewise, if you see an INxx, you don't say, "I see 4D Ni" because you didn't see Ni in the dimension of time.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

myst91 said:


> Yeah, I'm also about comparisons more than about contrasts. That's the core of that Reinin dichotomy yeah. Heh why criticize yourself for grouping people? It's not PC enough? lol
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't even grasp which thing is better if I can't contrast them lol. My comparisons are actually a mix of measurement and contrasts. Fascinating.

As for aristo, as I've said elsewhere, I feel like this dichotomy is convoluted too much. It's really the most complex dichotomy lol that regularly falls prey to stereotypes etc.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fried Eggz said:


> I didn't say valued.
> 
> If you see a soldier and hear a tank, you don't say, "I saw a tank" because you didn't see a tank. Likewise, if you see an INxx, you don't say, "I see 4D Ni" because you didn't see Ni in the dimension of time.


INxx technically equals 4D Ni. I do not see the issue. You are essentially arguing about notation. Unless you don't agree with the theory that 4D Ni types are Introverted and Intuitive.

If you want me to add to your nitpicking by nitpicking more, note how I didn't say "I see" 4D Ni, I simply categorized his type as a 4D Ni type. So, the tank analogy doesn't apply here.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Ixim said:


> I can't even grasp which thing is better if I can't contrast them lol. My comparisons are actually a mix of measurement and contrasts. Fascinating.
> 
> As for aristo, as I've said elsewhere, I feel like this dichotomy is convoluted too much. It's really the most complex dichotomy lol that regularly falls prey to stereotypes etc.


Nice so you are a Negativist, true to your type, ESI, IEE, whatever it is?


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

myst91 said:


> Nice so you are a Negativist, true to your type, ESI, IEE, whatever it is?


Yeah, that leaves only these sociotypes:

SEI, LII, EIE, SLE, ILI, ESI, LSE and IEE.

What we can eliminate are Ti egos-I am not that one. So, that eliminates LII and SLE. I am also pretty certain that we can eliminate their pair-the Fe egos(I don't feel the need to elevate / influence the emotional atmosphere)-so that eliminates SEI and EIE. That leaves ESI, ILI, LSE and IEE. Now, we can surmise pretty convincingly that I am a strong contact type-what that would say is that I use a lot of Creative function. Now, let's look at ALL the creative functions within ALL the negativists(just in any case):

SEI-Fe(just no)
LII-Ne(I think not)
EIE-Ni(I'll abstain here)
SLE-Ti(NO!)
ILI-Te(ok, abstain)
ESI-Se(sounds alright)
LSE-Si(sounds alright as well lol)
IEE-Fi(even though it is present in me, I wouldn't say it's my Creative, so no)

So, that leaves ILI, ESI and LSE. Seeing how I am very much a sensor, we can eliminate ILI as well. That leaves ESI and LSE. And then we end up in a bit of a problem. ESI and LSE share the Inert / Contact functions(they are just in another order). So we must turn to other forms of evaluation:

Fi vs Te: tbh, idk anymore. ( 0 / 0 )
Se valued vs Si valued: I'd almost say that I value Si more. ( 0 / 1 )
Ne valued vs Ni valued: I value Ni more (1 / 1 )
Static vs Dynamic: I'd say that I definitely lean more on the dyn side ( 1 / 2 )
Constructive / Emotive: Definitely Constructive ( 2 / 2 )
Result / Process: Process, but could be wrong here ( 2 / 3 )
Carefree / Farsighted: Carefree ( 3 / 3 )
Aristocratic / Democratic: While I do have aristocratic tendencies, I always acknowledge the person behind(everyone should be judged equally) ( 4 / 3 )
Merry / Serious: Serious lol ( 5 / 3 )

That would be _some _kind of analysis lol. I could be totally wrong here and end up as EIE fml! :wink:


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Seeing similarities seems to be statics thing more than it is part of positivism. Positivism is simply focus on what is present/available, what something _is_, negativism is focus on what is absent/missing, what something _is not_.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

To_august said:


> Seeing similarities seems to be statics thing more than it is part of positivism. Positivism is simply focus on what is present/available, what something _is_, negativism is focus on what is absent/missing, what something _is not_.


Actually, focusing on similarities is a focus on what is there, while focusing on contrasts is the opposite approach.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Ixim said:


> Yeah, that leaves only these sociotypes: (...)


Surely you can tell if you have 4D Fi or 4D Te.

Btw I used to not be able to tell ESI from LSE but that was when I was a beginner very much; I understand how you can be confused about these two, anyway


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

myst91 said:


> Actually, focusing on similarities is a focus on what is there, while focusing on contrasts is the opposite approach.


Focus on what is there is not the same as focus on similarities though.

One can say: "the book had boring characters and mediocre plot" or "there's a new asphalt road with fresh painted zebra crossings and two speed bumps", and both will be positivist statements. Similarities don't even go in the picture here. What I mean is that "the sun is shining today" is not the same as "today's sun is as bright as it was yesterday".


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

To_august said:


> Focus on what is there is not the same as focus on similarities though.
> 
> One can say: "the book had boring characters and mediocre plot" or "there's a new asphalt road with fresh painted zebra crossings and two speed bumps", and both will be positivist statements. Similarities don't even go in the picture here. What I mean is that "the sun is shining today" is not the same as "today's sun is as bright as it was yesterday".


Who said they were the same lol. ?! If you really want to worry about the logic here, then think of this as thinking processes that belong to the entirety of Positivist vs Negativist approaches, subsets in that sense. Important core of the concepts though, not like those concrete traits that have loose correlations to the Positivist/Negativist dichotomy.

The idea is that you build concepts either via comparisons where you note similarity or via contrasts. The former is a Positivist thinking process, the latter is a Negativist thinking process.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

myst91 said:


> Who said they were the same lol. ?! If you really want to worry about the logic here, then think of this as thinking processes that belong to the entirety of Positivist vs Negativist approaches, subsets in that sense. Important core of the concepts though, not like those concrete traits that have loose correlations to the Positivist/Negativist dichotomy.
> 
> The idea is that you build concepts either via comparisons where you note similarity or via contrasts. The former is a Positivist thinking process, the latter is a Negativist thinking process.


You said that comparisons/contrasts is the _core _of positivist/negativist dichotomy, and I disagree that this is truly the case. This may be true for positivists who are static types, but this is not the case for positivists who are dynamic types, hence it cannot be the core of positivist/negativist dichotomy, since drawing comparisons depends on something else beyond being positivist or negativist.

Building concepts via comparisons and similarities is property of static types:


> *Static types*
> 
> 
> Describe events in a general manner and by *comparing *them to other *similar *events.
> ...


And obviously there are positivist types who are not statics and they _do not_ build their concepts through focus on comparisons/similarities:


> *Dynamic types*
> 
> 
> Perceive events in a *continuous sequence* – *continuous *changes *rather than discrete *states.
> ...


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

To_august said:


> You said that comparisons/contrasts is the _core _of positivist/negativist dichotomy, and I disagree that this is truly the case.


I find it's much more core to the dichotomy than the list of concrete traits but I already explained this in my previous post.




> Building concepts via comparisons and similarities is property of static types:


Only the ones that are positivists.

I recommend you read through: Gulenko Cognitive Styles(wiki) - Wikisocion

(Ignore the bs correlating of concrete traits, tho'  )




> And obviously there are positivist types who are not statics and they _do not_ build their concepts through focus on comparisons/similarities:


I was talking about concepts, not events.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

myst91 said:


> I find it's much more core to the dichotomy than the list of concrete traits but I already explained this in my previous post.
> 
> Only the ones that are positivists.
> 
> ...


Ooh, I completely forgot about Gulenko's take on it. Now that perspective makes more sense, yeah.

I'm not yet sure which cognitive style I resemble the most though. Sure, I'm supposed to be vortical-synergetic, but have a hard time seeing how's that awesome style with a fancy name manifests in me XD


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

To_august said:


> Ooh, I completely forgot about Gulenko's take on it. Now that perspective makes more sense, yeah.
> 
> I'm not yet sure which cognitive style I resemble the most though. Sure, I'm supposed to be vortical-synergetic, but have a hard time seeing how's that awesome style with a fancy name manifests in me XD


Do you relate to any other cog styles beyond V-S?

C-D works for me quite well


----------

