# Reinin Dichotomies blind description or test?



## counterintuitive

Is there like a description or test I can take to see which Reinin dichotomies I relate to where I *can't* see which type is in which dichotomy? I don't want to be able to see it because I might bias it. I'm deliberately not googling to avoid seeing anything. I only know what they are because I saw some posts about them in another thread.

Also. Are they (Reinin dichotomies) actually reliable in typing people? I just want to see what most probably types are based on that. For curiosity's sake.

Thanks :crazy:


----------



## Another Lost Cause

This one might come somewhat close although it's just a helloquizzy test. I came out as ILE on it, which is probably the wrong type, but not terribly off. 

HelloQuizzy.com: The Socionics Test

Edit: Just took it again, got the same result. Guess it's got good test-restest reliability. 

ILE - Intuitive Logical Extratratim
53% LII, 61% ESE, 59% SEI, 63% ILE, 39% LSI, 44% EIE, 52% IEI, 50% SLE, 45% ESI, 48% LIE, 36% ILI, 50% SEE, 56% EII, 32% LSE, 55% SLI and 36% IEE!


----------



## counterintuitive

Another Lost Cause said:


> This one might come somewhat close although it's just a helloquizzy test. I came out as ILE on it, which is probably the wrong type, but not terribly off.
> 
> HelloQuizzy.com: The Socionics Test
> 
> Edit: Just took it again, got the same result. Guess it's got good test-restest reliability.
> 
> ILE - Intuitive Logical Extratratim
> 53% LII, 61% ESE, 59% SEI, 63% ILE, 39% LSI, 44% EIE, 52% IEI, 50% SLE, 45% ESI, 48% LIE, 36% ILI, 50% SEE, 56% EII, 32% LSE, 55% SLI and 36% IEE!


Lol I got ILE too??? That's weird.

Your result for The Socionics Test ...
ILE - Intuitive Logical Extratratim

50% LII, 73% ESE, 69% SEI, 75% ILE, 55% LSI, 38% EIE, 55% IEI, 44% SLE, 39% ESI, 45% LIE, 30% ILI, 34% SEE, 44% EII, 35% LSE, 42% SLI and 52% IEE!

So that looks like... ILE > ESE > SEI > LSI/IEI > IEE > LII ... it would help if it put them in order for me lol.

So I can still be ESE! haha

I'm still not reading anything about them so if someone has another test I can take it with a clear mind 

Thanks!


----------



## Verity

Another Lost Cause said:


> This one might come somewhat close although it's just a helloquizzy test. I came out as ILE on it, which is probably the wrong type, but not terribly off.
> 
> HelloQuizzy.com: The Socionics Test


lol, I got SLE.
Top 3:
SLE - 72%
ILI - 70%
LIE - 67%
Rest were around 50%, and I got no type under 38%. I guess it might serve as a pointer in the right direction if one understands the questions.

As for the OP, I think the concensus on this forum is that Reinins are useful if you are on the fence between two similar types, but you should not base your self-typing from scratch on them, since there's too much societal bias on stuff like aristocrat/democrat, as well as the usual confirmation bias. Just my impression.


----------



## Kerik_S

What I did was go to wikisocion's pages for all the 11 Reinin dichotomies:


*co*pied and pasted the definitions without reading them ever (turned down the contrast, brightness, turned up the gamma on my screen, zoomed out on the page to where the words themselves weren't legible, but the sections were at least apparent so I knew what to copy) 
*pu*t them all into one document 
*us*ed the batch "Find-Replace" function to turn all mentions of the dichotomies into XXXXs 
*sc*rambled the paragraph order so nothing was paired with its proper dichotomy 
*us*ed a rating of 1 to 5 (_*completely disagree*_ to _*completely agree*_) for each paragraph (each paragraph was a group of bullet points for each pole of each dichotomy, so 22 different bulleted lists) 
*we*nt back to wikisocion and figured out which XXXXs were which 
*sa*w which pairs of dichotomies had unmatching scores, and listed the "winners" of each of those pairs 
*in*vestigated the longer wikisocion descriptions of the pairs that got even scores, creating a tally system of how many sentences/examples for each pole of the remaining dichotomies, trying to see which one sounded more like me 
*re*fused-- *the entire time*-- to look at which types had what dichotomies (I didn't even know Quadras) 
*fi*nished my list of the "winners" 
*lo*oked at the "Reinin dichotomies" page of wikisocion and found which type had the most dichotomies in common 
*tw*o dichotomies were "off from IEI", so I made a list that's much like this one I made for a suspected INTP: 




Code:


------------
Dichotomies:
------------
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Confidence Dichotomy
0)    “Turbulent”

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
            {TESTS TAKEN:}
JUNGIAN Dichotomies    {16p %s    (25 quiz)}        IN REGARDS TO:

1)  I            {38%    (80 introvert; 5 extrovert)}        E/I
2)  N            {62%    (58 iNtuitive; 27 sensing)}        N/S
3)  T            {-21%    (80 logical[T]; 5 ethical[F])}        F/T
4)  P (“j”)        {n/a    (76 prospecting; 9 judging])}        J/P


———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
------------------------
    {Braces around {L}ETTERS indicate trait deviation from typical INTPs.}
------------------------

        “YOUR TRAIT”    -deviation-  __TYPES INDICATIVE -of- trait    OPPOSING TRAIT:
REININ Dichotomies (combination permutations of I, N, T and P)
------------------------
5)  IN        “Farsighted”            __IN__  -or- ES                CAREFREE
------------------------
    =======
------------------------
6)  {E}T    “{YIELDING}”     -contact-    _{E}T_  -or- IF                Obstinate
------------------------
    =======
------------------------
7)  IP        “Static”             __IP__  -or- EJ                DYNAMIC
------------------------
    =======
------------------------
8)  NT        “Individualist”            __NT__  -or- SF                COLLECTIVIST
------------------------
    =======
------------------------
9)  NP        “Strategic”             __NP__  -or- SJ                TACTICAL
------------------------
    =======
------------------------
10) T{J}    “{CONSTRUCTIVIST}” -ignoring-    _T{J}_  -or- FP                Emotivist
------------------------
    =======
------------------------
11) {E}NT    “{POSITIVIST}”       -contact-    _{E}NT  -or- IST -or- ESF -or- INF    Negativist
------------------------
    =======
------------------------
12) INP        “Judicious”            __INP_  -or- ISJ -or- ESP -or- ENJ     DECISIVE
------------------------
    =======
------------------------
13) ITP        “Subjectivist”            __ITP_  -or- IFJ -or- ETJ -or- EFP    OBJECTIVIST
------------------------
    =======
------------------------
14) NTP        “Results-oriented”        __NTP_  -or- STJ -or- SFP -or- NFJ    PROCESS-ORIENTED
------------------------
    =======
------------------------
15) INTP    a) “Asking”            __INTP_ -or- ISTJ (plus 6 other types)    DECLARING
    =======

*******    -x- ignoring, contact = CREATIVE SUBTYPE

I managed to reconcile the INTP's off-color Reinin dichotomies with the Ignoring and Contact variations found in the Creative DCNH Subtype. I found the same Subtype in myself, though using different dichotomies.

　

I also created an 11-question (A) or (B) choice quiz that was based on how I typed myself:

_* 1. Which sounds more like you?*_

a] stimulation before work maximizes performance, remaining alert and ready for the next task, having trouble unwinding after work is complete; begin work process immediately, assesing each individual task rather than preparing for the entire process; derive more satisfaction from the pay of employment than from the work environment

b] relaxation before work maximizes performance, finding periods of rest between tasks at work, easily relaxing after work is complete; prepare for task carefully in order to work efficiently on a sort of “auto–pilot”; derive more satisfaction from the work environment itself more than the pay

　

_* 2. Which sounds more like you?*_

a] set long–term goals, change methods for each goal if one method fails (flexible methods), rather have a few specific options than many options

b] set short– to intermediate–term goals, change the specifics of each goal as new methods are attempted (flexible goals), rather have many options than just a few specific options

　

_* 3. Which sounds more like you?*_

a] speak with a tone that is inquisitive rather than an instructive tone; easier time adressing an entire group of people all at once rather than one–at–a–time; prefer to have others ask questions in the middle of speech, and then resume speech after all questions have been addressed

b] speak with a tone that is instructive/explanatory rather than inquisitive; easier time addressing people one–by–one rather than the entire group all at once; like to complete an entire speech, and then have others ask questions

　

_* 4. Which sounds more like you?*_

a] personal space is violated when others insistently try to learn more about your ideas, beliefs and opinions; easily trust others to respectfully utilize your material possessions and social connections

b] personal space is violated when others try to compel you to share your material possessions and social connections; have very little tendency to become defensive when others challenge your ideas

　

_* 5. Which sounds more like you?*_

a] can detach oneself from an engaging group activity enough to realize consciously that the atmosphere is pleasant/unpleasant and the people are comfortable/uncomfortable; more informal when getting to know others, prefering to “go with the flow” and change ones closeness/distance to people as one learns more about them; would rather take into account all the differing opinions of a group and help the group understand that no single viewpoint is more “right” than any other; when the group makes a bad decision, you will ask them why they chose to make that decision and offer them a different perspective to help them make better team decisions in the future 

b] cannot easily detach oneself during an engaging group activity, assessing the atmosphere and the peoples' actions afterward rather than during the activity; more formal when getting to know others, prefering to follow a step–by–step process and know immediately where you're at in your closeness with others (able to clearly define when one has moved from acquaintance to friend, or vice–versa); would rather instruct a group before a discussion or collaboration, making sure they all understand the “right” way to approach the situation and are on the same page; when the group makes a bad decision, you will want to know who in the group had a misunderstanding of the “right” way of working, and address that particular person one–on–one to refresh their memory

　

_*6. Which sounds more like you?*_

a] work best by using information as it becomes available; prefer to begin problem solving process immediately and aquire more information during the process

b] work best by using information stored in memory; prefer to acquire all relevant information before you begin problem solving

　

_* 7. Which sounds more like you?*_

a] see life as a continuous flow of time, and when one shares these life stories, they explain them as a connected chain of events, explaining how one event leads to the next as they tell the story, answering their listeners' questions about specific moments afterward; when describing ones viewpoints, one focuses on their relation to their society/surroundings rather than how their viewpoints have shaped their principles in life

b] see life as a series of individual moments, and when one shares these life stories, they explain them one moment at a time before telling the listener how one moment led to the next; spend more time explaining what the individual moment was instead of what lead up to that moment; when describing ones viewpoints, one focuses on their principles rather than how their viewpoints affect other people



_* 8. Which sounds more like you?*_

a] perform tasks in sequence, from start to finish; one task at a time rather than multi-tasking; in leisurely activities, like reading an article, one will read the sections in order; more concerned with how something is done rather than whether or not its done the most efficiently it can be

b] perform tasks by switching between different parts of the task spontaneously, eventually finishing all of them; multi-tasking rather than one at a time; during leisure activities, like reading, one will skim the page and then focus intensely on the parts that are relevant; more concerned with getting something done efficiently rather than whether or not its done in a step–by–step way

　

_* 9. Which sounds more like you?*_

a] business first, personal aspects later; like to return to familiar places to feel centered and grounded; while reading or watching something, if one really likes one part but not the whole thing, they're still likely to think about the parts that they liked afterward; prefers people offer advice rather than emotional support

b] personal first, business aspects later; like to explore new places to feel most at ease; while reading or watching something, if one really likes certain parts and not the whole thing, they're more likely to remember whether or not they liked it as a whole afterward; prefers people offer emotional support than concrete advice

　

_* 10. Which sounds more like you?*_

a] see the world as a collection of interacting groups; focus more on the similarities and differences of one group versus another group, rather than individual differences amongst members of the same group; if a group sends a representative to speak on their behalf, you will trust that this person will properly explain the motives and attitudes of the group

b] see the world as a collection of individuals acting on their own accord; focus more on the individual differences between people, rather than what groups they may or may not be a part of; if a group of people send a representative to speak on their behalf, you would rather have them take you to the group to talk to people one–by–one to get an idea of the motives and attitudes of the group as a whole

　

_* 11. Which sounds more like you?*_

a] this type of person tends to phrase things with “no”, “not”, “wasn't”, “isn't”, “I can't say for certain, but if you ask them, they won't steer you wrong”;
“I hadn't read that many bad reviews on it” and follow by saying things like “but it wasn't some great experience like everyone was making it out to be.”


b] this type of person tends to phrase things with “definitely”, “it was”, “it is”, “They would know more than I can tell you about that. Go ask them.”
“I read a lot of good reviews on it" and follow by saying things like “but it was actually pretty awful.”


----------



## counterintuitive

@Kerik_S Holy cow, dude! I wish I could thank your post like 10 times. I decided to take your quiz...



Kerik_S said:


> _*1. Which sounds more like you?*_
> 
> a] stimulation before work maximizes performance, remaining alert and ready for the next task, having trouble unwinding after work is complete; begin work process immediately, assesing each individual task rather than preparing for the entire process; derive more satisfaction from the pay of employment than from the work environment
> 
> b] relaxation before work maximizes performance, finding periods of rest between tasks at work, easily relaxing after work is complete; prepare for task carefully in order to work efficiently on a sort of “auto–pilot”; derive more satisfaction from the work environment itself more than the pay


*very clear B*



> _* 2. Which sounds more like you?*_
> 
> a] set long–term goals, change methods for each goal if one method fails (flexible methods), rather have a few specific options than many options
> 
> b] set short– to intermediate–term goals, change the specifics of each goal as new methods are attempted (flexible goals), rather have many options than just a few specific options


*very clear B*　



> _* 3. Which sounds more like you?*_
> 
> a] speak with a tone that is inquisitive rather than an instructive tone; easier time adressing an entire group of people all at once rather than one–at–a–time; prefer to have others ask questions in the middle of speech, and then resume speech after all questions have been addressed
> 
> b] speak with a tone that is instructive/explanatory rather than inquisitive; easier time addressing people one–by–one rather than the entire group all at once; like to complete an entire speech, and then have others ask questions


*very clear A*　



> _* 4. Which sounds more like you?*_
> 
> a] personal space is violated when others insistently try to learn more about your ideas, beliefs and opinions; easily trust others to respectfully utilize your material possessions and social connections
> 
> b] personal space is violated when others try to compel you to share your material possessions and social connections; have very little tendency to become defensive when others challenge your ideas


*clear B*　



> _* 5. Which sounds more like you?*_
> 
> a] can detach oneself from an engaging group activity enough to realize consciously that the atmosphere is pleasant/unpleasant and the people are comfortable/uncomfortable; more informal when getting to know others, prefering to “go with the flow” and change ones closeness/distance to people as one learns more about them; would rather take into account all the differing opinions of a group and help the group understand that no single viewpoint is more “right” than any other; when the group makes a bad decision, you will ask them why they chose to make that decision and offer them a different perspective to help them make better team decisions in the future
> 
> b] cannot easily detach oneself during an engaging group activity, assessing the atmosphere and the peoples' actions afterward rather than during the activity; more formal when getting to know others, prefering to follow a step–by–step process and know immediately where you're at in your closeness with others (able to clearly define when one has moved from acquaintance to friend, or vice–versa); would rather instruct a group before a discussion or collaboration, making sure they all understand the “right” way to approach the situation and are on the same page; when the group makes a bad decision, you will want to know who in the group had a misunderstanding of the “right” way of working, and address that particular person one–on–one to refresh their memory


*clear A*



> _*6. Which sounds more like you?*_
> 
> a] work best by using information as it becomes available; prefer to begin problem solving process immediately and aquire more information during the process
> 
> b] work best by using information stored in memory; prefer to acquire all relevant information before you begin problem solving


*very clear A*



> _* 7. Which sounds more like you?*_
> 
> a] see life as a continuous flow of time, and when one shares these life stories, they explain them as a connected chain of events, explaining how one event leads to the next as they tell the story, answering their listeners' questions about specific moments afterward; when describing ones viewpoints, one focuses on their relation to their society/surroundings rather than how their viewpoints have shaped their principles in life
> 
> b] see life as a series of individual moments, and when one shares these life stories, they explain them one moment at a time before telling the listener how one moment led to the next; spend more time explaining what the individual moment was instead of what lead up to that moment; when describing ones viewpoints, one focuses on their principles rather than how their viewpoints affect other people


*mostly B but kinda not totally clear?*



> _* 8. Which sounds more like you?*_
> 
> a] perform tasks in sequence, from start to finish; one task at a time rather than multi-tasking; in leisurely activities, like reading an article, one will read the sections in order; more concerned with how something is done rather than whether or not its done the most efficiently it can be
> 
> b] perform tasks by switching between different parts of the task spontaneously, eventually finishing all of them; multi-tasking rather than one at a time; during leisure activities, like reading, one will skim the page and then focus intensely on the parts that are relevant; more concerned with getting something done efficiently rather than whether or not its done in a step–by–step way


*very clear B*



> _* 9. Which sounds more like you?*_
> 
> a] business first, personal aspects later; like to return to familiar places to feel centered and grounded; while reading or watching something, if one really likes one part but not the whole thing, they're still likely to think about the parts that they liked afterward; prefers people offer advice rather than emotional support
> 
> b] personal first, business aspects later; like to explore new places to feel most at ease; while reading or watching something, if one really likes certain parts and not the whole thing, they're more likely to remember whether or not they liked it as a whole afterward; prefers people offer emotional support than concrete advice


*probably B but not totally clear*



> _* 10. Which sounds more like you?*_
> 
> a] see the world as a collection of interacting groups; focus more on the similarities and differences of one group versus another group, rather than individual differences amongst members of the same group; if a group sends a representative to speak on their behalf, you will trust that this person will properly explain the motives and attitudes of the group
> 
> b] see the world as a collection of individuals acting on their own accord; focus more on the individual differences between people, rather than what groups they may or may not be a part of; if a group of people send a representative to speak on their behalf, you would rather have them take you to the group to talk to people one–by–one to get an idea of the motives and attitudes of the group as a whole


*leaning towards B but I don't really know*



> _* 11. Which sounds more like you?*_
> 
> a] this type of person tends to phrase things with “no”, “not”, “wasn't”, “isn't”, “I can't say for certain, but if you ask them, they won't steer you wrong”;
> “I hadn't read that many bad reviews on it” and follow by saying things like “but it wasn't some great experience like everyone was making it out to be.”
> 
> b] this type of person tends to phrase things with “definitely”, “it was”, “it is”, “They would know more than I can tell you about that. Go ask them.”
> “I read a lot of good reviews on it" and follow by saying things like “but it was actually pretty awful.”


*I really have no idea lol*


----------



## Ixim

Another Lost Cause said:


> This one might come somewhat close although it's just a helloquizzy test. I came out as ILE on it, which is probably the wrong type, but not terribly off.
> 
> HelloQuizzy.com: The Socionics Test
> 
> Edit: Just took it again, got the same result. Guess it's got good test-restest reliability.
> 
> ILE - Intuitive Logical Extratratim
> 53% LII, 61% ESE, 59% SEI, 63% ILE, 39% LSI, 44% EIE, 52% IEI, 50% SLE, 45% ESI, 48% LIE, 36% ILI, 50% SEE, 56% EII, 32% LSE, 55% SLI and 36% IEE!


Well, I got LSI. wtf...

35% LII, 55% ESE, 59% SEI, 63% ILE, 64% LSI, 44% EIE, 45% IEI, 31% SLE, 48% ESI, 48% LIE, 55% ILI, 53% SEE, 50% EII, 38% LSE, 42% SLI and 48% IEE!


----------



## Ixim

Kerik_S said:


> What I did was go to wikisocion's pages for all the 11 Reinin dichotomies:
> 
> 
> *co*pied and pasted the definitions without reading them ever (turned down the contrast, brightness, turned up the gamma on my screen, zoomed out on the page to where the words themselves weren't legible, but the sections were at least apparent so I knew what to copy)
> *pu*t them all into one document
> *us*ed the batch "Find-Replace" function to turn all mentions of the dichotomies into XXXXs
> *sc*rambled the paragraph order so nothing was paired with its proper dichotomy
> *us*ed a rating of 1 to 5 (_*completely disagree*_ to _*completely agree*_) for each paragraph (each paragraph was a group of bullet points for each pole of each dichotomy, so 22 different bulleted lists)
> *we*nt back to wikisocion and figured out which XXXXs were which
> *sa*w which pairs of dichotomies had unmatching scores, and listed the "winners" of each of those pairs
> *in*vestigated the longer wikisocion descriptions of the pairs that got even scores, creating a tally system of how many sentences/examples for each pole of the remaining dichotomies, trying to see which one sounded more like me
> *re*fused-- *the entire time*-- to look at which types had what dichotomies (I didn't even know Quadras)
> *fi*nished my list of the "winners"
> *lo*oked at the "Reinin dichotomies" page of wikisocion and found which type had the most dichotomies in common
> *tw*o dichotomies were "off from IEI", so I made a list that's much like this one I made for a suspected INTP:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> ------------
> Dichotomies:
> ------------
> ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
> Confidence Dichotomy
> 0)    “Turbulent”
> 
> ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
> {TESTS TAKEN:}
> JUNGIAN Dichotomies    {16p %s    (25 quiz)}        IN REGARDS TO:
> 
> 1)  I            {38%    (80 introvert; 5 extrovert)}        E/I
> 2)  N            {62%    (58 iNtuitive; 27 sensing)}        N/S
> 3)  T            {-21%    (80 logical[T]; 5 ethical[F])}        F/T
> 4)  P (“j”)        {n/a    (76 prospecting; 9 judging])}        J/P
> 
> 
> ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
> ------------------------
> {Braces around {L}ETTERS indicate trait deviation from typical INTPs.}
> ------------------------
> 
> “YOUR TRAIT”    -deviation-  __TYPES INDICATIVE -of- trait    OPPOSING TRAIT:
> REININ Dichotomies (combination permutations of I, N, T and P)
> ------------------------
> 5)  IN        “Farsighted”            __IN__  -or- ES                CAREFREE
> ------------------------
> =======
> ------------------------
> 6)  {E}T    “{YIELDING}”     -contact-    _{E}T_  -or- IF                Obstinate
> ------------------------
> =======
> ------------------------
> 7)  IP        “Static”             __IP__  -or- EJ                DYNAMIC
> ------------------------
> =======
> ------------------------
> 8)  NT        “Individualist”            __NT__  -or- SF                COLLECTIVIST
> ------------------------
> =======
> ------------------------
> 9)  NP        “Strategic”             __NP__  -or- SJ                TACTICAL
> ------------------------
> =======
> ------------------------
> 10) T{J}    “{CONSTRUCTIVIST}” -ignoring-    _T{J}_  -or- FP                Emotivist
> ------------------------
> =======
> ------------------------
> 11) {E}NT    “{POSITIVIST}”       -contact-    _{E}NT  -or- IST -or- ESF -or- INF    Negativist
> ------------------------
> =======
> ------------------------
> 12) INP        “Judicious”            __INP_  -or- ISJ -or- ESP -or- ENJ     DECISIVE
> ------------------------
> =======
> ------------------------
> 13) ITP        “Subjectivist”            __ITP_  -or- IFJ -or- ETJ -or- EFP    OBJECTIVIST
> ------------------------
> =======
> ------------------------
> 14) NTP        “Results-oriented”        __NTP_  -or- STJ -or- SFP -or- NFJ    PROCESS-ORIENTED
> ------------------------
> =======
> ------------------------
> 15) INTP    a) “Asking”            __INTP_ -or- ISTJ (plus 6 other types)    DECLARING
> =======
> 
> *******    -x- ignoring, contact = CREATIVE SUBTYPE
> 
> I managed to reconcile the INTP's off-color Reinin dichotomies with the Ignoring and Contact variations found in the Creative DCNH Subtype. I found the same Subtype in myself, though using different dichotomies.
> 
> 
> 
> I also created an 11-question (A) or (B) choice quiz that was based on how I typed myself:
> 
> _* 1. Which sounds more like you?*_
> 
> a] stimulation before work maximizes performance, remaining alert and ready for the next task, having trouble unwinding after work is complete; begin work process immediately, assesing each individual task rather than preparing for the entire process; derive more satisfaction from the pay of employment than from the work environment
> 
> b] relaxation before work maximizes performance, finding periods of rest between tasks at work, easily relaxing after work is complete; prepare for task carefully in order to work efficiently on a sort of “auto–pilot”; derive more satisfaction from the work environment itself more than the pay
> 
> 
> 
> _* 2. Which sounds more like you?*_
> 
> a] set long–term goals, change methods for each goal if one method fails (flexible methods), rather have a few specific options than many options
> 
> b] set short– to intermediate–term goals, change the specifics of each goal as new methods are attempted (flexible goals), rather have many options than just a few specific options
> 
> 
> 
> _* 3. Which sounds more like you?*_
> 
> a] speak with a tone that is inquisitive rather than an instructive tone; easier time adressing an entire group of people all at once rather than one–at–a–time; prefer to have others ask questions in the middle of speech, and then resume speech after all questions have been addressed
> 
> b] speak with a tone that is instructive/explanatory rather than inquisitive; easier time addressing people one–by–one rather than the entire group all at once; like to complete an entire speech, and then have others ask questions
> 
> 
> 
> _* 4. Which sounds more like you?*_
> 
> a] personal space is violated when others insistently try to learn more about your ideas, beliefs and opinions; easily trust others to respectfully utilize your material possessions and social connections
> 
> b] personal space is violated when others try to compel you to share your material possessions and social connections; have very little tendency to become defensive when others challenge your ideas
> 
> 
> 
> _* 5. Which sounds more like you?*_
> 
> a] can detach oneself from an engaging group activity enough to realize consciously that the atmosphere is pleasant/unpleasant and the people are comfortable/uncomfortable; more informal when getting to know others, prefering to “go with the flow” and change ones closeness/distance to people as one learns more about them; would rather take into account all the differing opinions of a group and help the group understand that no single viewpoint is more “right” than any other; when the group makes a bad decision, you will ask them why they chose to make that decision and offer them a different perspective to help them make better team decisions in the future
> 
> b] cannot easily detach oneself during an engaging group activity, assessing the atmosphere and the peoples' actions afterward rather than during the activity; more formal when getting to know others, prefering to follow a step–by–step process and know immediately where you're at in your closeness with others (able to clearly define when one has moved from acquaintance to friend, or vice–versa); would rather instruct a group before a discussion or collaboration, making sure they all understand the “right” way to approach the situation and are on the same page; when the group makes a bad decision, you will want to know who in the group had a misunderstanding of the “right” way of working, and address that particular person one–on–one to refresh their memory
> 
> 
> 
> _*6. Which sounds more like you?*_
> 
> a] work best by using information as it becomes available; prefer to begin problem solving process immediately and aquire more information during the process
> 
> b] work best by using information stored in memory; prefer to acquire all relevant information before you begin problem solving
> 
> 
> 
> _* 7. Which sounds more like you?*_
> 
> a] see life as a continuous flow of time, and when one shares these life stories, they explain them as a connected chain of events, explaining how one event leads to the next as they tell the story, answering their listeners' questions about specific moments afterward; when describing ones viewpoints, one focuses on their relation to their society/surroundings rather than how their viewpoints have shaped their principles in life
> 
> b] see life as a series of individual moments, and when one shares these life stories, they explain them one moment at a time before telling the listener how one moment led to the next; spend more time explaining what the individual moment was instead of what lead up to that moment; when describing ones viewpoints, one focuses on their principles rather than how their viewpoints affect other people
> 
> 
> 
> _* 8. Which sounds more like you?*_
> 
> a] perform tasks in sequence, from start to finish; one task at a time rather than multi-tasking; in leisurely activities, like reading an article, one will read the sections in order; more concerned with how something is done rather than whether or not its done the most efficiently it can be
> 
> b] perform tasks by switching between different parts of the task spontaneously, eventually finishing all of them; multi-tasking rather than one at a time; during leisure activities, like reading, one will skim the page and then focus intensely on the parts that are relevant; more concerned with getting something done efficiently rather than whether or not its done in a step–by–step way
> 
> 
> 
> _* 9. Which sounds more like you?*_
> 
> a] business first, personal aspects later; like to return to familiar places to feel centered and grounded; while reading or watching something, if one really likes one part but not the whole thing, they're still likely to think about the parts that they liked afterward; prefers people offer advice rather than emotional support
> 
> b] personal first, business aspects later; like to explore new places to feel most at ease; while reading or watching something, if one really likes certain parts and not the whole thing, they're more likely to remember whether or not they liked it as a whole afterward; prefers people offer emotional support than concrete advice
> 
> 
> 
> _* 10. Which sounds more like you?*_
> 
> a] see the world as a collection of interacting groups; focus more on the similarities and differences of one group versus another group, rather than individual differences amongst members of the same group; if a group sends a representative to speak on their behalf, you will trust that this person will properly explain the motives and attitudes of the group
> 
> b] see the world as a collection of individuals acting on their own accord; focus more on the individual differences between people, rather than what groups they may or may not be a part of; if a group of people send a representative to speak on their behalf, you would rather have them take you to the group to talk to people one–by–one to get an idea of the motives and attitudes of the group as a whole
> 
> 
> 
> _* 11. Which sounds more like you?*_
> 
> a] this type of person tends to phrase things with “no”, “not”, “wasn't”, “isn't”, “I can't say for certain, but if you ask them, they won't steer you wrong”;
> “I hadn't read that many bad reviews on it” and follow by saying things like “but it wasn't some great experience like everyone was making it out to be.”
> 
> 
> b] this type of person tends to phrase things with “definitely”, “it was”, “it is”, “They would know more than I can tell you about that. Go ask them.”
> “I read a lot of good reviews on it" and follow by saying things like “but it was actually pretty awful.”


Even though this is beautiful, I once again got "invalid / nonexistant type" with Reinins. The closest two would be LII and SEE. Also, the possibility of IEE.


----------



## Kerik_S

coagulate said:


> @_Kerik_S_ Holy cow, dude! I wish I could thank your post like 10 times. I decided to take your quiz....


You're welcome!



Code:


	0	.	.	.	(null/nonnull)
	1 ....X	.	.	.	(extratim/introtim)		E/I
	2 ....X	.	.	.	(intuitive/sensing)		I/S
	3 ....X	.	.	.	(ethical/logical)		E/L
======	4 ....x	.	.	.	(irrational/rational)		(p/j)
6)  A	5 ...EN	/ IS	.	.	(carefree/farsighted)		CAREFREE
4)  B	6 ...ET	/ IF	.	.	(obstinate/yielding)		YIELDING
7)  B	7 ...Ep	/ Ij	.	.	(dynamic/static)		STATIC
10) B	8 ...NT	/ SF	.	.	(aristocratic/democratic)	DEMOCRATIC	“xxxx, xxxx Democrat” (???? Quadra)
2)  B	9 ...Np	/ Sj	.	.	(strategic/tactical)		TACTICAL
9)  B	10 ..Fp	/ Tj	.	.	(constructivist/emotivist)	EMOTIVIST
11) .	11	.	.	.	(negativist/positivist)		?_______?
1)  B	12 .ENp	/ ESj /	INj / ISp	(decisive/judicious)		JUDICIOUS “Judicious, xxxx Democrat” (???? Quadra)
5)  A	13 .EFj	/ ETp /	IFp / ITj	(merry/serious)			MERRY	“Judicious, Merry Democrat” (ALPHA Quadra)
8)  B	14 .NFp	/ NTj /	SFj / STp	(process/result)		RESULTS

3)  A	15 ENFj	/ENTp /ESFp /ESTj	(asking/declaring)		ASKING
.	.. INFp	/INTj /ISFj /ISTp

　

Negativist/Positivist is easy. I looked at your post history: You use positivist phrasing much more than negativist.

Your most indicated type based on Reinin dichotomies is ENTp (ILE). Everything except your Emotivism and Results-orientation matches ILE. That's not uncommon.

I have two traits that aren't standard-fair IEI: Carefree-'ness and Negativism. I may seem "Declaring" rather than Asking, too, but only if you take those words at face-value. The actual point-for-point decriptions, more points go to Asking even if I am rather direct.


----------



## Ixim

Kerik_S said:


> You're welcome!
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 0    .    .    .    (null/nonnull)
> 1 ....X    .    .    .    (extratim/introtim)        E/I
> 2 ....X    .    .    .    (intuitive/sensing)        I/S
> 3 ....X    .    .    .    (ethical/logical)        E/L
> ======    4 ....x    .    .    .    (irrational/rational)        (p/j)
> 6)  A    5 ...EN    / IS    .    .    (carefree/farsighted)        CAREFREE
> 4)  B    6 ...ET    / IF    .    .    (obstinate/yielding)        YIELDING
> 7)  B    7 ...Ep    / Ij    .    .    (dynamic/static)        STATIC
> 10) B    8 ...NT    / SF    .    .    (aristocratic/democratic)    DEMOCRATIC    “xxxx, xxxx Democrat” (???? Quadra)
> 2)  B    9 ...Np    / Sj    .    .    (strategic/tactical)        TACTICAL
> 9)  B    10 ..Fp    / Tj    .    .    (constructivist/emotivist)    EMOTIVIST
> 11) .    11    .    .    .    (negativist/positivist)        ?_______?
> 1)  B    12 .ENp    / ESj /    INj / ISp    (decisive/judicious)        JUDICIOUS “Judicious, xxxx Democrat” (???? Quadra)
> 5)  A    13 .EFj    / ETp /    IFp / ITj    (merry/serious)            MERRY    “Judicious, Merry Democrat” (ALPHA Quadra)
> 8)  B    14 .NFp    / NTj /    SFj / STp    (process/result)        RESULTS
> 
> 3)  A    15 ENFj    /ENTp /ESFp /ESTj    (asking/declaring)        ASKING
> .    .. INFp    /INTj /ISFj /ISTp
> 
> 
> 
> Negativist/Positivist is easy. I looked at your post history: You use positivist phrasing much more than negativist.
> 
> Your most indicated type based on Reinin dichotomies is ENTp (ILE). Everything except your Emotivism and Results-orientation matches ILE. That's not uncommon.
> 
> I have two traits that aren't standard-fair IEI: Carefree-'ness and Negativism. I may seem "Declaring" rather than Asking, too, but only if you take those words at face-value. The actual point-for-point decriptions, more points go to Asking even if I am rather direct.


Truthfully, I have no idea how I phrase sentences myself and I don't care. I phrase them like I phrase them. I don't really like this kind of introspection tbh. If I introspect, I introspect about either my understanding of the outer world or my likes / dislikes etc and why I have them. I don't "think then speak". I just speak and I don't care what anyone thinks of it. Sure, I'll speak how I think a person should, but I will not hand tailor my speech or put any significant attention towards it(again, this kind of introspection is VERY DIFFICULT for me).

And I don't like to think "why I did something" tbh. I just prefer to either improve it(if it wasn't perfect) or to eliminate it(if it was a bad type of behaviour). "Why did you do that?" is a very difficult question for me. "Because I had a need" or sth like that would be my answer :happy:


----------



## Kerik_S

[ . . . ]

Answered thinking I was talking to someone else!


----------



## Kerik_S

Ixim said:


> Truthfully, I have no idea how I phrase sentences myself and I don't care. I phrase them like I phrase them. I don't really like this kind of introspection tbh. If I introspect, I introspect about either my understanding of the outer world or my likes / dislikes etc and why I have them. I don't "think then speak". I just speak and I don't care what anyone thinks of it. Sure, I'll speak how I think a person should, but I will not hand tailor my speech or put any significant attention towards it(again, this kind of introspection is VERY DIFFICULT for me).
> 
> And I don't like to think "why I did something" tbh. I just prefer to either improve it(if it wasn't perfect) or to eliminate it(if it was a bad type of behaviour). "Why did you do that?" is a very difficult question for me. "Because I had a need" or sth like that would be my answer :happy:


Well, dammit. I spent a whole post thinking I was quoting the OP, but the OP is coag, not you!

xD

If it's any consolation: When thinking you were someone who answered Reinin dichotomies like an ILE, I analyzed your words and entertained one train of thought dissecting the words in this post and coming to the conclusion (thinking you were someone else):

Irrational Leading (almost certain) + Extratim (almost certain) + Mobilizing Te (less certain than Fi, more certain than Si) + Valued Fi + 1D Si (least certain) ... and that was about halfway through before I got some kind of possible greater-than-2D-Te thing that didn't pan out and my brain shut down.

Good to know my initial hunch, though two-dimensional in my crafting the response that followed, was accurate though imprecise.

Go Ni! ^_^ Fuck you, Ti!


----------



## Ixim

Kerik_S said:


> Well, dammit. I spent a whole post thinking I was quoting the OP, but the OP is coag, not you!
> 
> xD
> 
> If it's any consolation: When thinking you were someone who answered Reinin dichotomies like an ILE, I analyzed your words and entertained one train of thought dissecting the words in this post and coming to the conclusion (thinking you were someone else):
> 
> Irrational Leading (almost certain) + Extratim (almost certain) + Mobilizing Te (less certain than Fi, more certain than Si) + Valued Fi + 1D Si (least certain) ... and that was about halfway through before I got some kind of possible greater-than-2D-Te thing that didn't pan out and my brain shut down.
> 
> Good to know my initial hunch, though two-dimensional in my crafting the response that followed, was accurate though imprecise.
> 
> Go Ni! ^_^ Fuck you, Ti!


Do share everything you thought of! Even the musings can help :wink:


----------



## counterintuitive

Kerik_S said:


> If it's any consolation: When thinking you were someone who answered Reinin dichotomies like an ILE, I analyzed your words and entertained one train of thought dissecting the words in this post and coming to the conclusion (thinking you were someone else):
> 
> * Irrational Leading (almost certain) + Extratim (almost certain)* + Mobilizing Te (less certain than Fi, more certain than Si) + Valued Fi + 1D Si (least certain) ... and that was about halfway through before I got some kind of possible greater-than-2D-Te thing that didn't pan out and my brain shut down.


Sorry to bother you again, and thanks again, even though this was not about me 

Do you think the bolded is true of me as well, though? Is that what you meant with the original response? (I read it before you deleted it lol sorry I saw it on my phone)


----------



## Kerik_S

Ixim said:


> Do share everything you thought of! Even the musings can help


I have an add-on to my browser called "Lazarus" that stores text-boxes and forms (like, sign-up information for websites, minus passwords of course). So, I can right-click right now and "resurrect it" like Lazarus! ^_^

　



Ixim said:


> Truthfully, I have no idea how I phrase sentences myself and I don't care.　I phrase them like I phrase them. I don't really like this kind of introspection tbh.


Well, for the purposes of answering the question, it doesn't matter if you care-- it matters that I got an answer and used the answer. So, no introspection isn't really necessary at all. It's better that you answer these questions without too much thought either, especially if you're already familiar with Socionics. It could decrease the chances of your answers being influenced by perpetuated biases.

　

Actually, my analysis didn't get saved. It got overwritten by my revision.


----------



## Kerik_S

@Ixim

Sorry. Those Ti information aspects are lost forever!


----------



## Kerik_S

coagulate said:


> Sorry to bother you again, and thanks again, even though this was not about me
> 
> Do you think the bolded is true of me as well, though? Is that what you meant with the original response? (I read it before you deleted it lol sorry I saw it on my phone)


No, it's not what I believe categorically about you. Because I originally posted a two-segment interpetation (of Ixim's words, thinking they were you)
... in which I wrote a list after every quoted section



> 1) Irrational-Leading blah blah blah
> 2) or simply Extroverted-Leading blah blah blah





> 1) Irrational-Lead with this possible extratim in you, blah blah blah
> 2) Extroverted-Lead + Extratim is redundant blah blah blah





> 1) Irrational-Lead + Extratim + possible Mobilizing Te, blah blah blah
> 2) Extroverted-Lead + possible Mobilizing Fi, blah blah blah





> 1) blah blah blah blah blah blah
> 2) blah blah blah blah blah blah


　

The entire time, what you have bolded when you quoted me:



> *Irrational Leading (almost certain) + Extratim (almost certain)* + Mobilizing Te (less certain than Fi, more certain than Si) + Valued Fi + 1D Si (least certain) ...


.... *THIS* was only one possibly (number 1 in the listed psuedo-quoted above) that I started to reconsider... going back through the post and adding [number 2] throughout... and eventually canning the whole thing.

　

So, no. I was never sold. I was just telling Ixim that his words initially triggered an IEE hunch.

As soon as I considered your words and testing in its totality, I reconsidered and found an alternative interpretation that was so contradictory to IEE that I burned the whole post.

　
I notice you didn't post anything in response to what was the "User-End experience" of my report on the Reinin dichotomies (which was a running process).... And you jumped immediately on one quote that was basically a mistake, and directed at someone else's words.

I think you may have either a bias against ILE, or a bias for Irrational-Extroverted-Leading function.

Your selective focus seems like you've been embroiled in bias for a while.

Is this the first time your results have pointed toward ILE?


----------



## counterintuitive

Kerik_S said:


> I notice you didn't post anything in response to what was the "User-End experience" of my report on the Reinin dichotomies (which was a running process).... And you jumped immediately on one quote that was basically a mistake, and directed at someone else's words.


Woah, sorry, dude. I understand your reaction, though; it looks like I'm taking your quote and analysis out of context, or maybe cherrypicking. I wasn't. I just wasn't sure what applied to me and what to Ixim and I only half-remembered your previous post, and just wanted to clarify as I'm trying to get a better handle on my (yet unknown) type.

I totally understand that you felt jumped on though, and I apologize for selectively quoting you and not reading enough of what you said. I didn't think there was anything I could add to your rather impressive "User-End experience" report, so I decided not to respond at all. I will respond now, though. I didn't realize it was an ongoing process. I appreciate you taking the time regardless.



> I think you may have either a bias against ILE, or a bias for Irrational-Extroverted-Leading function.
> 
> Your selective focus seems like you've been embroiled in bias for a while.


I did formerly have an anti-irrational bias, but I worked on it and it's gone now. Twas very silly anyway to be biased against certain typings. Ridiculous of me.



> Is this the first time your results have pointed toward ILE?


No lol


----------



## Ixim

Kerik_S said:


> @_Ixim_
> 
> Sorry. Those Ti information aspects are lost forever!


Oh goodness!

We're doomed! There is simply no salvation for us...
(C3PO the optimist :crazy: )

Ah well. Maybe some other time :wink:


----------



## counterintuitive

Kerik_S said:


> You're welcome!
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 0    .    .    .    (null/nonnull)
> 1 ....X    .    .    .    (extratim/introtim)        E/I
> 2 ....X    .    .    .    (intuitive/sensing)        I/S
> 3 ....X    .    .    .    (ethical/logical)        E/L
> ======    4 ....x    .    .    .    (irrational/rational)        (p/j)
> 6)  A    5 ...EN    / IS    .    .    (carefree/farsighted)        CAREFREE
> 4)  B    6 ...ET    / IF    .    .    (obstinate/yielding)        YIELDING
> 7)  B    7 ...Ep    / Ij    .    .    (dynamic/static)        STATIC
> 10) B    8 ...NT    / SF    .    .    (aristocratic/democratic)    DEMOCRATIC    “xxxx, xxxx Democrat” (???? Quadra)
> 2)  B    9 ...Np    / Sj    .    .    (strategic/tactical)        TACTICAL
> 9)  B    10 ..Fp    / Tj    .    .    (constructivist/emotivist)    EMOTIVIST
> 11) .    11    .    .    .    (negativist/positivist)        ?_______?
> 1)  B    12 .ENp    / ESj /    INj / ISp    (decisive/judicious)        JUDICIOUS “Judicious, xxxx Democrat” (???? Quadra)
> 5)  A    13 .EFj    / ETp /    IFp / ITj    (merry/serious)            MERRY    “Judicious, Merry Democrat” (ALPHA Quadra)
> 8)  B    14 .NFp    / NTj /    SFj / STp    (process/result)        RESULTS
> 
> 3)  A    15 ENFj    /ENTp /ESFp /ESTj    (asking/declaring)        ASKING
> .    .. INFp    /INTj /ISFj /ISTp
> 
> 
> 
> Negativist/Positivist is easy. I looked at your post history: You use positivist phrasing much more than negativist.
> 
> Your most indicated type based on Reinin dichotomies is ENTp (ILE). Everything except your Emotivism and Results-orientation matches ILE. That's not uncommon.
> 
> I have two traits that aren't standard-fair IEI: Carefree-'ness and Negativism. I may seem "Declaring" rather than Asking, too, but only if you take those words at face-value. The actual point-for-point decriptions, more points go to Asking even if I am rather direct.


Thanks again.... I went to wikisocion for Negativist/Positivist and scrolled down before I could see which types were which and I relate to positivist a lot more than negativist so yeah.

What kind of feedback am I supposed to provide for the ongoing process?

Edit: Sorry I know I sound really clueless. I just...I don't know what I'm doing. Idk what to say. I was already accused of "skewing" my results in another thread. I wrote a 40q but got confused by the responses. The only way I can avoid skewing other people is if I don't write anything. I don't know. I don't want to create a certain impression of XYZ type. But anything I could write in response to your post would create that impression of XYZ type or not XYZ type.


----------



## Artorias

karmachameleon said:


> Why did you put that in citation marks? lol
> If you needed it confirmed then you weren't absolutely certain. :tongue:


-You can say 90% certain but, I want it to be 100% certainty.
__________________________________________________________________ @Kerik_S 

-Please, end this madness, I sense a disturbance in the force, the void is so close and we are only suffering now.


----------



## Kerik_S

Artorias said:


> "To Confirm My Type".
> +
> -To have fun and to deepen my knowledge of "The Subject".


This just substantiates my hypothesis that you're biased.

You came here for confirmation, thus succumbed to the Confirmation Bias.

You don't sound like an LII.


----------



## Artorias

Kerik_S said:


> This just substantiates my hypothesis that you're biased.
> 
> You came here for confirmation, thus succumbed to the Confirmation Bias.
> 
> You don't sound like an LII.


Is there anything I can do to end this?
I have been on this since (August,2015).


----------



## karmachameleon

I was like this a while ago. Except it was someone who tried to type me as Mbti ISTJ.. ^^ and he didn't know of cognitive functions.


----------



## Artorias

I am not a feeler type in (socionics based system or MBTI based system) so, what is your opinion?

-Edit: Also, Not a "Se" or "Si" dominant.
@Kerik_S 

What About This ?
http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/721258-intp-intj-questionnaire.html


----------



## Kerik_S

Artorias said:


> I am not a feeler type in (socionics based system or MBTI based system) so, what is your opinion?


I'm gonna have to know why you think that before I can answer that


----------



## Artorias

Kerik_S said:


> I'm gonna have to know why you think that before I can answer that


-Mostly because, I think through everything logically before (Making decision,.....etc) and I can detach from emotions easily (Moral codes, society rules, real emotions come from within).

-I think literally every day in (math problems, using math to predict a certain outcome, love mental challenges).

-Rarely let my emotions go, not in tune with my feelings, (The last years my family has been calling me cold or "Too critical" using your logic in every thing).


----------



## Kerik_S

Artorias said:


> -Mostly because, I think through everything logically before (Making decision,.....etc) and I can detach from emotions easily (Moral codes, society rules, real emotions from within).
> 
> -I think literally every day in (math problems, using math to predict a certain outcome, love mental challenges).
> 
> -Rarely let my emotions go, not in tube with my feelings, The last years my family has been calling me cold or "Too critical" using your logic in every thing).


I'm not hearing anything that would rule out T being 2D in you. Meaning you could still be an ethical type.

You seem to have fallen for the trap of seeing F as literally "feelings". It's not feelings. And "moral code" is only Fi, and "society rules" is _not_ Fe.

If you were Ti-dom, you would have used internal logical rules of the systems to explain yourself.

If you are a Logic (T) type, it's probably no more than 3D and it would probably be Te.

Your insistence on "going home" as a respond to a car breaking down and even just some other stuff was reading more like Si to me, not Ni.

I don't get SLI, though. Maybe SEI? Si-Fe-Ti.... It sounds to me like you like to see yourself as a logical person while you actually don't exhibit it naturally.


----------



## Artorias

Kerik_S said:


> I'm not hearing anything that would rule out T being 2D in you. Meaning you could still be an ethical type.
> 
> You seem to have fallen for the trap of seeing F as literally "feelings". It's not feelings. And "moral code" is only Fi, and "society rules" is _not_ Fe.
> 
> If you were Ti-dom, you would have used internal logical rules of the systems to explain yourself.
> 
> If you are a Logic (T) type, it's probably no more than 3D and it would probably be Te.
> 
> Your insistence on "going home" as a respond to a car breaking down and even just some other stuff was reading more like Si to me, not Ni.
> 
> I don't get SLI, though. Maybe SEI? Si-Fe-Ti.... It sounds to me like you like to see yourself as a logical person while you actually don't exhibit it naturally.


-I love my home because, I have been treated wrong in school and actually I had only 1 friend through my entire life so, this is naturally to happen,.

Edit:I am only talking like this because, I am sick and I am having a headache so, I am not in the mood.

Edit(2):English is my second language, if I talk logically in English, It will make me hate myself.


----------



## Kerik_S

Artorias said:


> -I love my home because, I have been treated wrong in school and actually I had only 1 friend through my entire life so, this is naturally to happen,.


Not really. Some types would take being treated wrong at school and make it into a proving ground and actually want to go. And you were talking about a car breaking down with friends: That has nothing to do with school.

You seem to just want to dismiss whatever doesn't fit with your type. A Ti-dom wouldn't do that.

You're coming across as an F. Seriously. Probably Fe.

　


Artorias said:


> Edit:I am only talking like this because, I am sick and I am having a headache so, I am not in the mood.


Okay? That entire questionnaire I read has nothing to do with how you feel right now.

　


Artorias said:


> Edit(2):English is my second language, if I talk logically in English, It will make me hate myself.


That makes no sense. You're grasping at straws.

And _two edits_ to try and rationalize? You're very biased, and I don't see the point in continuing with you.


----------



## Artorias

@Kerik_S 

-ok, I was wrong, I said help me to understand my type, I do not insist on anything and sorry if I was too rigid and stubborn.


----------



## Kerik_S

Artorias said:


> @_Kerik_S_
> 
> -ok, I was wrong, I said help me to understand my type, I do not insist on anything and sorry if I was too rigid and stubborn.


Just remain open-minded

I have a lot of trouble relating to INTPs and very little trouble relating to INTJs. You're somewhere in the middle of being non-relatable and being very-relatable. I just don't see those as options.


----------



## Artorias

Kerik_S said:


> Just remain open-minded
> 
> I have a lot of trouble relating to INTPs and very little trouble relating to INTJs. You're somewhere in the middle of being non-relatable and being very-relatable. I just don't see those as options.


-Then, Tell me what I have to do in order that getting the right results ?.


----------



## Kerik_S

Artorias said:


> -Then, Tell me what I have to do in order that getting the right results ?.


I can't tell you how to break down a bias. I'm not a psychologist


----------



## Artorias

Kerik_S said:


> I can't tell you how to break down a bias. I'm not a psychologist


-The Medication quite worked so, it is the best time for you to help me if you will.


----------



## Kerik_S

Artorias said:


> -The Medication quite worked so, it is the best time for you to help me if you will.


My Ti is pretty burnt out, dude. Do you have any Ti-Leads or Ti-Creatives you could tag and ask some questions? I don't see myself being able to help you atm.

My 11-questiont thing is really the only typing tool I have


----------



## Artorias

Kerik_S said:


> My Ti is pretty burnt out, dude. Do you have any Ti-Leads or Ti-Creatives you could tag and ask some questions? I don't see myself being able to help you atm.
> 
> My 11-questiont thing is really the only typing tool I have


-I know but, if you know how many threads and how many forums I have been in on to find my type (asking around, even talking to real INTPs) you will tell me to stop, literally I have lost hope in this subject, I was about (INTj and INTP) at first then it turned out from you that I (Maybe) a feeler type so, LOL.

Edit: I have been relating to this guy a lot since first time I saw him.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIBYJ7DLNOlMNPbxmmQsWvg


----------



## Kerik_S

Artorias said:


> -I know but, if you know how many threads and how many forums I have been in on to find my type (asking around, even talking to real INTPs) you will tell me to stop, literally I have lost hope in this subject, I was about (INTj and INTP) at first then it turned out from you that I (Maybe) a feeler type so, LOL.


I'm sorry. Some people are hard to type


----------



## Artorias

Kerik_S said:


> I'm sorry. Some people are hard to type


Can Dominant and tertiary functions during a "loop" help me to find my type?


----------



## Kerik_S

Artorias said:


> Can Dominant and tertiary functions in a "loop" help me to find my type?


Not really. You could loop in ways that _aren't_ Dominant and Tertiary.

Have you read what each and every IE (Fe, Fi, Ne, Ni, Se, Si, Te, Ti) look like in _each and every_ function in Socionics (Leading, Creative, Role, Vulnerable, Suggestive, Mobilizing, Ignoring, Demonstrative)?

That's 64 different occurences of IEs. And you need to find out which IE goes into each function "slot".


----------



## karmachameleon

Do i come off as an IEI? @Kerik_S


----------



## Artorias

Kerik_S said:


> Not really. You could loop in ways that _aren't_ Dominant and Tertiary.
> 
> Have you read what each and every IE (Fe, Fi, Ne, Ni, Se, Si, Te, Ti) look like in _each and every_ function in Socionics (Leading, Creative, Role, Vulnerable, Suggestive, Mobilizing, Ignoring, Demonstrative)?
> 
> That's 64 different occurences of IEs. And you need to find out which IE goes into each function "slot".


-If you read my comment with "5 editings", You would see that I said "I read these" so, basically yes, I took every possible socionics and MBTI test I could find and the same results still poping out, while answering, I usually answer truthfully because I do not need to lie to myself about this subject.

-ILE was a possible outcome too because, my friends "Skype friends" told me that "I am being too inappropriate" and one of them said "Are you sick ?" and they did not realize that I was joking.


----------



## Kerik_S

karmachameleon said:


> Do i come off as an IEI? @_Kerik_S_


I haven't seen enough of you, but nothing you've said makes me think "not IEI".

Have some fun around the INFJ forum, since IEI <--> INFJ has been seen as one of the closest "approximations" between an MBTI type and it's "rough translation" in Socionics.


----------



## Kerik_S

Artorias said:


> If you read my comment with "5 editings", You would see that I said "I read these" so, basically yes, I took every possible socionics and MBTI test I could find and the same results still poping out, while answering, usually I answer truthfully because I do not need to lie to myself about this subject.


Make a Type Me forum in the What's My Type forum...?

EDIT: And don't include any possible types in the Title or the Post. Be a clean slate


----------



## Artorias

Kerik_S said:


> Make a Type Me forum in the What's My Type forum...?
> 
> EDIT: And don't include any possible types in the Title or the Post. Be a clean slate


ok.


----------



## karmachameleon

Kerik_S said:


> I haven't seen enough of you, but nothing you've said makes me think "not IEI".
> 
> Have some fun around the INFJ forum, since IEI <--> INFJ has been seen as one of the closest "approximations" between an MBTI type and it's "rough translation" in Socionics.


I feel like theyre too "feely" over there for me.
Idk. When im around people like that i have the urge to be more logical and critical. But when im around people who are like that i feel the need to be more feely to balance it out. Fe?


----------



## karmachameleon

Or enneagram 7...


----------



## counterintuitive

goldberry3 said:


> Interesting quiz! A few of them I was unsure about. I'm always unsure about aristocratic and democratic for myself...


Your results are most consistent with:
Quadra: Judicious, Serious, Aristocratic = Delta
*EII: 11/11* Total match with EII! If I change Static to Dynamic and Process to Result (the ones you said you weren't sure about), it's still a 9/11 match - still the highest match.
SLE: 7/11
_LSE: 6/11_
ILE: 6/11
SEE: 6/11
_SLI: 6/11_
_IEE: 5/11_
LSI: 5/11
LIE: 5/11
SEI: 5/11
ESE: 5/11
ILI: 5/11
IEI: 4/11
ESI: 4/11
LII: 4/11
EIE: 4/11

P.S. @Kerik_S I created a spreadsheet to calculate this, lol, hope you don't mind, please correct/provide input though as necessary.


----------



## Kerik_S

counterintuitive said:


> Your results are most consistent with:
> Quadra: Judicious, Serious, Aristocratic = *Delta*
> *EII: 10/11*
> SLE: 7/11
> LSE: 7/11
> ILE: 6/11
> IEE: 6/11
> SEE: 6/11
> LSI: 5/11
> SLI: 5/11
> LIE: 5/11
> SEI: 5/11
> ESE: 5/11
> ILI: 5/11
> IEI: 4/11
> ESI: 4/11
> LII: 4/11
> EIE: 4/11
> 
> P.S. @_Kerik_S_ I created a spreadsheet to calculate this, lol, hope you don't mind, please correct/provide input though as necessary.
> 
> ETA Wait there's something wrong. Sorry. BRB


Nah. Go for it. I'm not attached to my quiz


----------



## willowglass

counterintuitive said:


> Your results are most consistent with:
> Quadra: Judicious, Serious, Aristocratic = Delta
> *EII: 11/11* Total match with EII! If I change Static to Dynamic and Process to Result (the ones you said you weren't sure about), it's still a 9/11 match - still the highest match.
> SLE: 7/11
> _LSE: 6/11_
> ILE: 6/11
> SEE: 6/11
> _SLI: 6/11_
> _IEE: 5/11_
> LSI: 5/11
> LIE: 5/11
> SEI: 5/11
> ESE: 5/11
> ILI: 5/11
> IEI: 4/11
> ESI: 4/11
> LII: 4/11
> EIE: 4/11
> 
> P.S. @Kerik_S I created a spreadsheet to calculate this, lol, hope you don't mind, please correct/provide input though as necessary.


Thank you for taking your time to do that, @counterintuitive.I appreciate it. 

11/11- lol. Maybe _I'm_ being bias. I'm pretty familiar with reinin, so I knew what reinin most of the questions were alluding to, so it really wasn't blind. When I first got into this I related to IEI/EII matching dichotomies the most....but now I understand them more, so ha, I don't know which is better. lol. Like the aristocratic, I just find it confusing since I feel like I do both when thinking about people. But, someone who's opinion I respect once told me my writing was very static, and is filled with static structures, so idk. Honestly, what I least identify with is the descriptions of rationality...lol I think I might be an irrational rational. I'm pretty sure I'm a harmonizing subtype in DCHN, if that has anything to do with it. I don't know how all that works exactly, and if it even has any merit...some say not.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Lets try how it works 

1)b
2)I dont set goals. Neither.
3)b
4)b
5)a
6)No idea which to choose, both works I think.
7)Maybe b ? but not really. It's best for this to not be considered.
8)a
9)b
10)Both options sound weird to see the world. 
11)???


----------



## counterintuitive

crashbandicoot said:


> 1)b
> 2)I dont set goals. Neither.
> 3)b
> 4)b
> 5)a
> 6)No idea which to choose, both works I think.
> 7)Maybe b ? but not really. It's best for this to not be considered.
> 8)a
> 9)b
> 10)Both options sound weird to see the world.
> 11)???


Your indicated answers: (1) Judicious; (2) ––; (3) Declaring; (4) Yielding; (5) Merry; (6) ––; (7) ––; (8) Process; (9) Emotivist; (10) ––; (11) ––

Your results are most consistent with:
Quadra: Judicious, Merry, –– = Alpha

*SEI: 6/11*; ILE: 4/11; LSI: 4/11; EII: 4/11; LSE: 4/11; ESE: 3/11; IEI: 3/11; LII: 3/11; IEE: 3/11; LIE: 3/11; SLE: 3/11; SEE: 2/11; EIE: 2/11; ILI: 2/11; ESI: 1/11; SLI: 1/11

You only gave 6 answers, though, and you have a 100% match with SEI on those answers! However, your comment on #2 suggests you're Tactical > Strategic, while SEI is Strategic. Still, it's normal to have a few that don't match your type.

So overall I'd say you fit SEI pretty well.


----------



## To_august

> Sociotypograph - determine sociotype


_Let's try it.
I'm fairly certain of negaitivist and obstinate. Less certain of strategic and constructivist, but these two are clearer than other proposed traits, so... What the.. 

Hamlet it is.

I'm pretty sure I'm not Hamlet. Lol. There's something about this type lately, as it's the second instance in short amount of time this type comes across.
Going by descriptions:_*

Decisive - Judicious*
*Decisive*
- Prefer to make and implement decisions quickly, and respect this approach in other people;
- Have a good memory of the moment when they make a decision and the beginning of its implementation, have worse memory of the process that led to making the decision;
- It's difficult for them to relax and easier to mobilize;
- Valued Se (confidence, strength, power, persistence) and Ni (time, trends, foresight, planning).
*Judicious*
- Prefer to make decisions deliberately, decisions should be initially discussed and thought over, the very fact of making a decision is less important;
- Have a good memory of the process and initial reasoning that led to making the decision and pay attention to it, have worse memory of the very moment of making a decision;
- It's more difficult for them to mobilize and easier to relax;
- Valued Si (physical sensations, comfort, well-being) and Ne (ideas, meaning, integrity, forecasts, probability).

_Both. Difficult to mobilize when relaxed, but difficult to relax when mobilized too.
_
*Merry (subjectivist) - Serious (objectivist)*

*Merry (subjectivist):*
- Subjective perception of the world is of greater importance;
- Appreciate emotional background in both formal and informal settings (for example they like to joke at work), the fun for them is good in itself;
- Considering someone's opinion, they give more weight to the authority of the person who gave it;
- Valued Ti (interrelationships, understanding of cause and effect, hierarchies, systems), and Fe (emotional states, enthusiasm, impressionability).
_*Serious (objectivist)*_
- Objective perception of the world is of greater importance;
- Appreciate the appropriateness of emotional displays (do not joke at work if they consider it inappropriate), fun is good for them if carries a particular benefit;
- Considering someone's opinion, they give greater importance to whether this opinion is consistent with reality;
- Valued Te (facts, actions, results, efficiency), and Fi (relation to people, objects, relationships between people).

_Err... Hard to say from that. A bit of the former and a bit of the latter. So, both.
_
*Aristocratic - Democratic*

_*Aristocratic*_
- Treat people in terms of their belonging to a certain group or layer in the hierarchy, or to a particular social circle rather than with regard to their individual qualities;
- Usually this trait is more apparent for rationals.
_*Democrats*_
- Treat people in terms of their individual qualities, rather than in terms of their belonging to a certain group;
- Usually this trait is more apparent for irrationals.

_Sure enough I relate more to democratic, but I'll skip it, since it's a fucked up trait.
_
*Obstinate - Yielding *

_*Obstinate*_
— Obstinate are hard to over-persuade, even if they conform outwardly (e.g. out of courtesy), strong arguments are needed to truly persuade them;
— Obstinate are less inclined to compromise;
— When an obstacle occurs, for obstinate it is easier to persuade people and postpone their goal or do something to overcome the obstacle than change their goal;
— 1D Ti (guided only by experience) or 4D Ti (posses their own concept and understanding, able to see aspect in process and over time), hence its difficult for them to accept persuasion from outside.
_*Yielding*_
— Yielding are easier to over-persuade;
— Yielding are more inclined to compromise and can give a head start to others;
— When an obstacle occurs, for yielding it is easier to change their goal than persuade people or postpone their goal and assume necessary measures to overcome the obstacle;
— Ti is eather 2D or 3D, hence is more flexible in acquiring new information.

_Obstinate for sure.
_
*Carefree - Farsighted*

_*Carefree*_
- In a new situation they take a better notice and pay attention to novelty in a given situation in comparison to their past experience;
- In a new situation, after changes and novelty has been tracked, they act "in a new way" according to changes in place;
- Ni is 2D or 3D (these functions are more flexible).
_*Farsighted*_
- In a new situation they less notice novelty in a given situation in comparison to their past experience;
- In a new situation they more act on the basis of their past experience, less inclined to take into account changes in place;
- Ni is 1D or 4D (these functions are more rigid).
_More of a farsighted._
*Result - Process*

_*Result*_
- They need to see the purpose of any task or process in which they are involved;
- The purpose is more interesting than the process or task itself;
- They remain "outside of the process", implementation of the process is monitored externally;
- When doing something, it is easier for them to break the task into stages and track the achievement of results at each stage, it is easier for them to switch from one task to another.
*Process*
- They need to be keen about the process in any task or process in which they are involved;
- They are more interested in the process than in the result or purpose;
- They remain "inside of the process", flow of the process is monitored internally;
- When doing something, it is easier for them to carry out the process, without any distractions to unrelated activities; the need to switch to another process arises when the process ceases to be engaging, and not when the result is achieved as it happens with result types.

_Not sure about it. A bit of both depending on a number of different variables.
_
*Constructivist - Emotivist
*
_*Constructivist*_
- Constructivists initially perceive the meaning of the situation and later its emotional background;
- Constructivists initially respond "constructively", comprehending the situation, and then experience it emotionally, emotional reaction is secondary;
- Constructivists are less inclined to adapt to the mood of the team or partner in certain situations;
- Fe/Fi - base or PoLR, Te/Ti - role or creative;
- Usually this trait is more apparent for logical irrational types.
_*Emotivist*_
- Emotivists initially perceive the emotional background of the situation and later its meaning part;
- At first emotivists need to experience and feel the emotions of the situation, and then they can constructively and meaningfully react to it;
- Emotivists are more inclined to adapt to the mood of the team or partner in certain situations;
- Fe/Fi - role or creative, Te/Ti - base or PoLR;
- At emotivistov one aspect of ethics (Ethics black or white ethics) is either in a position or role, or the creative functions and logic - in the position of either the base or pain functions;
- Usually this trait is more apparent for ethical irrational types.

_Constructivist is more relatable._

*Asking - Declaring*

_*Asking*_
- They have a propensity for learning others' points of view, ask questions more often;
- In conversations they are inclined to dialogue and listening to a partner;
- They react more calmly if someone interrupts them, they can be easily interrupted, but it's more difficult for them to return to the moment they've been interrupted and proceed speaking from there on.
- Conversation partner's reaction is important for them, so they can understand if the person listens to them or not, it's important for them;
- Frequently give short answers, it's more important for them to hear the conversation partner, rather than speak their opinion;
- This trait is more apparent for introverts.
_*Declaring*_
- They have a propensity for voicing their points of view;
- In conversations they are inclined to monologue, less inclined to ask questions, prefer to answer questions and express their points of view;
- They react uneasily to interruptions, it is more difficult to interrupt them, but if they were interrupted it's easier for them to return to the moment they've been interrupted and proceed speaking from there on.
- Conversation partner's reaction is less important for them, conversation partner's reaction indicates to what extent the person understands them;
- They are more often give extensive answers than asking types, it's more important for them to express an opinion rather than listen to the conversation partner;
- This trait is more apparent for extraverts.

_More like... declaring? ...probably. Not sure. There are definitely more asking characteristics in my speech and writing, but I don't tend to ask questions to track if someone listens to me. I do more of a monologue with an asking dash. 

Anyway, I read about the research done on this particular trait, that showed that this trait is a weak one. Among askers only Beta NF showed corresponding tendencies. Gamma SF and Delta ST showed weak preference for declaring actually and Alpha NT didn't show any preference at all. 
Among declarers - Beta ST and Gamma NT confirmed their declaring tendencies, whereas __Delta NF (__supposed declarers) showed very clear preference for asking.
So...
Probably that's another poorly described trait.
_

*Tactical - Strategic*

_*Tactical*_
- Tactical types often make decisions on the basis of the current state of affairs, trying to arrive at locally optimal solutions, take perspectives into account to a lesser extent;
- It is easier for them to see and evaluate the next step, they less clearly see the goal;
- Tactical types tend to accept help in determining the goals, it's easier to convince them to change the goal, but they don't like when someone interferes with their specific tactical steps;
- Se/Si - role or creative, Ne/Ni - base or PoLR.
_*Strategic*_
- Strategic types more often make decisions by reference to future objectives, their decisions can be locally nonoptimal, but are focused on future results;
- It's easier for strategic types to set and evaluate the goal, and harder to see the next step;
- Strategic types tend to accept help in tactical steps, but don't like when someone tries to convince them to change the goal;
- Se/Si - base or PoLR, Ne/Ni - role or creative.

_Strategic seems good. I don't quite get how it is possible to easily decide on the next step, if there is no goal towards which this step supposed to lead._

*Dynamics - Statics*

_*Dynamics*_
- They primarily notice changes, trends in objects and processes, it is more difficult for them to trace the state of the object or process at a concrete moment of time;
- They perceive reality as a continuous sequence of events, through changes;
- Their words and movements seem continuous, one flowing from another;
- Assessing the situation, it is easier for them to keep track of changes in characteristics over time;
- Mental (conscious) dynamic IEs- Ni/Si/Te/Fe;
- Intuition strengthens this trait.
_*Statics*_
- They primarily notice state of the object or process at a concrete moment of time, it is more difficult for them to trace changes and trends in objects and processes;
- They perceive reality as a set of images, sets of static of snapshots;
- Their words and movements seem discontinuous, separated from each other;
- Assessing the situation, it is easier for them to track fixed characteristics at a certain moment time;
- Mental (conscious) static IEs: Ne/Se/Ti/Fi;
- Sensing strengthens this trait.

_Hard to say. A bit of both.
_

*Positivist - Negativist
*
_*Positivist*_
- Positivists easier notice what is present in a situation, rather than what is absent from the situation;
- Positivists first of all pay attention to the positive aspects of the current situation.
_*Negativist*_
- Negativists easier notice what is absent from a situation, rather than what is present in the situation;
- Negativists first of all pay attention to the negative aspects of the current situation.

_This is to short of a description, but I've already decided on negativist.
_
So, these ones I have more confidence about:Obstinate 
Farsighted
Constructivist 
Strategic 
Negativist

I must have confused eather constructivist or strategic, 'cause the rest ones well fall in line with each other. Overall, not that bad as I expected. LII or ILI from this.


----------



## bibliobibuli

1) a
2) a
3) a
4) b
5) a
6) b
7) a
8) b
9) b
10) a
11) b

Can anyone help me out with this? :blushed:


----------



## karmachameleon

1. a
2. a
3. a
4. b
5 a
6 a
7 a 
8 b
9 b
10 a
11 b

I know i got IEI highest but I want to know the scores i got on the other types?


----------



## counterintuitive

Guerrière said:


> 1) a
> 2) a
> 3) a
> 4) b
> 5) a
> 6) b
> 7) a
> 8) b
> 9) b
> 10) a
> 11) b
> 
> Can anyone help me out with this? :blushed:


Your indicated answers: (1) Decisive; (2) Strategic; (3) Asking; (4) Yielding; (5) Merry; (6) Farsighted; (7) Dynamic; (8) Result; (9) Emotivist; (10) Aristocratic; (11) Positivist

Your results are most consistent with:
Quadra: Decisive, Merry, Aristocratic = Beta
*IEI: 10/11*; LIE: 7/11; SLE: 7/11; LSE: 6/11; LII: 6/11; SEE: 6/11; EIE: 6/11; SLI: 6/11; SEI: 5/11; LSI: 5/11; EII: 5/11; ESE: 5/11; ILE: 4/11; ESI: 4/11; IEE: 3/11; ILI: 3/11


----------



## counterintuitive

karmachameleon said:


> 1. a
> 2. a
> 3. a
> 4. b
> 5 a
> 6 a
> 7 a
> 8 b
> 9 b
> 10 a
> 11 b
> 
> I know i got IEI highest but I want to know the scores i got on the other types?


Your indicated answers: (1) Decisive; (2) Strategic; (3) Asking; (4) Yielding; (5) Merry; (6) Carefree; (7) Dynamic; (8) Result; (9) Emotivist; (10) Aristocratic; (11) Positivist

Your results are most consistent with:
Quadra: Decisive, Merry, Aristocratic = Beta
*IEI: 9/11*; LIE: 8/11; EIE: 7/11; SLI: 7/11; SLE: 6/11; SEI: 6/11; LSI: 6/11; LSE: 5/11; LII: 5/11; SEE: 5/11; ILE: 5/11; ESI: 5/11; EII: 4/11; ESE: 4/11; IEE: 4/11; ILI: 2/11


----------



## Ixim

FreeBeer said:


> Brief description of the Reinin’s traits
> 
> Yielding - more attention is paid to needs.
> Obstinate - more attention is paid to resources.
> 
> Carefree - a willingness to solve problems not foreseen earlier. Each time there is a new algorithm created for specific problem. "Spot a problem- solve the problem."
> Farsighted - an attempt to foresee the situation beforehand and to anticipate all possible needs.
> 
> Process - more attention is paid to the process itself.
> Result - greater emphasis is put on the results.
> 
> Positivist - in the situation (the object, the person) the focus is more on the positive characteristics that unite people.
> Negativist - in the situation (the object, the person) the focus is more on the "pitfalls", the dangers, the possible losses, the characteristics that divide people.
> 
> Static – reliance is on permanent, constant characteristics of the object, situation.
> Dynamic – reliance is on dynamic, variable characteristics of the object, situation, process.
> 
> Judicious – the values are comfort, convenience, opportunity to discuss and to resolve problems peacefully.
> Decisive - the values are willpower, decisive action, speed of decision-making.
> 
> Subjective ("merry") – the opinion is mostly based on a subjective assessment within one’s own concept, the fun can be combined with the work.
> Objective ("serious") - the judgments are mostly based on the objective laws within generally accepted concept. “There is time for work; there is time for fun “
> 
> Asking - communication is in a dialog form. The information is communicated in the form of questions and answers. Short answers to questions.
> Declaring - communication is in a monolog form. The information is communicated in large blocks, "questions will be later". Rhetorical questions, the purpose of which - to drive the listener to the correct conclusion.
> 
> Tactical - better understanding and evaluation of the next steps (sequence of steps, path) than the target.
> Strategic - better recognition and evaluation of the goal (desired state) than the next steps.
> 
> Constructivist - more attention is paid directly to the business, rather than to the establishment of relationships.
> Emotivist - more attention is paid to the establishment and the maintenance of contact with the speaker.
> 
> Democratic - the perception of the object (person) occurs outside the context of an environment that has shaped him, the social hierarchy, belonging to a certain group.
> Aristocratic – perception of object (person) occurs within the context of the environment that shaped him, the social hierarchy, belonging to a certain group.
> 
> Source: socionics.ru
> 
> *<__< fuck still doesen't help me beyond IxE....ima go with IEE :/*


How about you stop, catch a breath and try to describe Fi and Ti respectively? Let's see with which one are you more familiar...


----------



## karmachameleon

Why did I get high on Ni types but people here say they see no Ni in me


----------



## Ixim

karmachameleon said:


> Why did I get high on Ni types but people here say they see no Ni in me


Since when does it matter what the people see and what they don't see? The things people said they saw in me was...lol.

Do you prefer Ni over Ne / Se / Si? Furthermore, do you even know what all of those are?

edit: "Why do you get HIGH on Ni types"...idk maybe you like to...khm...mount Ni types? /shrug
(sorry, had to :crazy


----------



## karmachameleon

Going to do it again because I didnt take enough time to understand the statements last time.

1. Which sounds more like you?

a] stimulation before work maximizes performance, remaining alert and ready for the next task, having trouble unwinding after work is complete; begin work process immediately, assesing each individual task rather than preparing for the entire process; derive more satisfaction from the pay of employment than from the work environment

b] relaxation before work maximizes performance, finding periods of rest between tasks at work, easily relaxing after work is complete; prepare for task carefully in order to work efficiently on a sort of “auto–pilot”; derive more satisfaction from the work environment itself more than the pay

*A
B if it's something I enjoy, but then i have a hard time unwinding after so i guess mostly A*



2. Which sounds more like you?

a] set long–term goals, change methods for each goal if one method fails (flexible methods), rather have a few specific options than many options

b] set short– to intermediate–term goals, change the specifics of each goal as new methods are attempted (flexible goals), rather have many options than just a few specific options

*both*. like i have only one long term goal and that is to study abroad and i will do whatever it takes to do it.
but i set short term goals but often fail them, and then i change them.



3. Which sounds more like you?

a] speak with a tone that is inquisitive rather than an instructive tone; easier time adressing an entire group of people all at once rather than one–at–a–time; prefer to have others ask questions in the middle of speech, and then resume speech after all questions have been addressed

b] speak with a tone that is instructive/explanatory rather than inquisitive; easier time addressing people one–by–one rather than the entire group all at once; like to complete an entire speech, and then have others ask questions

*A*


4. Which sounds more like you?

a] personal space is violated when others insistently try to learn more about your ideas, beliefs and opinions; easily trust others to respectfully utilize your material possessions and social connections

b] personal space is violated when others try to compel you to share your material possessions and social connections; have very little tendency to become defensive when others challenge your ideas

*B*


5. Which sounds more like you?

a] can detach oneself from an engaging group activity enough to realize consciously that the atmosphere is pleasant/unpleasant and the people are comfortable/uncomfortable; more informal when getting to know others, prefering to “go with the flow” and change ones closeness/distance to people as one learns more about them; would rather take into account all the differing opinions of a group and help the group understand that no single viewpoint is more “right” than any other; when the group makes a bad decision, you will ask them why they chose to make that decision and offer them a different perspective to help them make better team decisions in the future 

b] cannot easily detach oneself during an engaging group activity, assessing the atmosphere and the peoples' actions afterward rather than during the activity; more formal when getting to know others, prefering to follow a step–by–step process and know immediately where you're at in your closeness with others (able to clearly define when one has moved from acquaintance to friend, or vice–versa); would rather instruct a group before a discussion or collaboration, making sure they all understand the “right” way to approach the situation and are on the same page; when the group makes a bad decision, you will want to know who in the group had a misunderstanding of the “right” way of working, and address that particular person one–on–one to refresh their memory

* A*


6. Which sounds more like you?

a] work best by using information as it becomes available; prefer to begin problem solving process immediately and aquire more information during the process

b] work best by using information stored in memory; prefer to acquire all relevant information before you begin problem solving

*I dont know..*
　

7. Which sounds more like you?

a] see life as a continuous flow of time, and when one shares these life stories, they explain them as a connected chain of events, explaining how one event leads to the next as they tell the story, answering their listeners' questions about specific moments afterward; when describing ones viewpoints, one focuses on their relation to their society/surroundings rather than how their viewpoints have shaped their principles in life

b] see life as a series of individual moments, and when one shares these life stories, they explain them one moment at a time before telling the listener how one moment led to the next; spend more time explaining what the individual moment was instead of what lead up to that moment; when describing ones viewpoints, one focuses on their principles rather than how their viewpoints affect other people

*A*

8. Which sounds more like you?

a] perform tasks in sequence, from start to finish; one task at a time rather than multi-tasking; in leisurely activities, like reading an article, one will read the sections in order; more concerned with how something is done rather than whether or not its done the most efficiently it can be

b] perform tasks by switching between different parts of the task spontaneously, eventually finishing all of them; multi-tasking rather than one at a time; during leisure activities, like reading, one will skim the page and then focus intensely on the parts that are relevant; more concerned with getting something done efficiently rather than whether or not its done in a step–by–step way
*
B
*


9. Which sounds more like you?

a] business first, personal aspects later; like to return to familiar places to feel centered and grounded; while reading or watching something, if one really likes one part but not the whole thing, they're still likely to think about the parts that they liked afterward; prefers people offer advice rather than emotional support

b] personal first, business aspects later; like to explore new places to feel most at ease; while reading or watching something, if one really likes certain parts and not the whole thing, they're more likely to remember whether or not they liked it as a whole afterward; prefers people offer emotional support than concrete advice

*B*　



10. Which sounds more like you?

a] see the world as a collection of interacting groups; focus more on the similarities and differences of one group versus another group, rather than individual differences amongst members of the same group; if a group sends a representative to speak on their behalf, you will trust that this person will properly explain the motives and attitudes of the group

b] see the world as a collection of individuals acting on their own accord; focus more on the individual differences between people, rather than what groups they may or may not be a part of; if a group of people send a representative to speak on their behalf, you would rather have them take you to the group to talk to people one–by–one to get an idea of the motives and attitudes of the group as a whole

*A*

11. Which sounds more like you?

a] this type of person tends to phrase things with “no”, “not”, “wasn't”, “isn't”, “I can't say for certain, but if you ask them, they won't steer you wrong”;
“I hadn't read that many bad reviews on it” and follow by saying things like “but it wasn't some great experience like everyone was making it out to be.”


b] this type of person tends to phrase things with “definitely”, “it was”, “it is”, “They would know more than I can tell you about that. Go ask them.”
“I read a lot of good reviews on it" and follow by saying things like “but it was actually pretty awful.”

*A maybe.. not sure though.*


----------



## karmachameleon

Ixim said:


> Since when does it matter what the people see and what they don't see? The things people said they saw in me was...lol.
> 
> Do you prefer Ni over Ne / Se / Si? Furthermore, do you even know what all of those are?
> 
> edit: "Why do you get HIGH on Ni types"...idk maybe you like to...khm...mount Ni types? /shrug
> (sorry, had to :crazy


Because i dont understand Ni so i tend to trust people that do 
and lol


----------



## bibliobibuli

counterintuitive said:


> Your indicated answers: (1) Decisive; (2) Strategic; (3) Asking; (4) Yielding; (5) Merry; (6) Farsighted; (7) Dynamic; (8) Result; (9) Emotivist; (10) Aristocratic; (11) Positivist
> 
> Your results are most consistent with:
> Quadra: Decisive, Merry, Aristocratic = Beta
> *IEI: 10/11*; LIE: 7/11; SLE: 7/11; LSE: 6/11; LII: 6/11; SEE: 6/11; EIE: 6/11; SLI: 6/11; SEI: 5/11; LSI: 5/11; EII: 5/11; ESE: 5/11; ILE: 4/11; ESI: 4/11; IEE: 3/11; ILI: 3/11


Thank you for taking your time to help me out!


----------



## Future2Future

Help a brother out :typingneko:

1. a
2. b
3. b
4. b
5. a
6. a
7. b
8. b
9. a
10. b
11. a

Cheers.


----------



## karmachameleon

Super Salmacis 64 said:


> Help a brother out :typingneko:
> 
> 1. a
> 2. b
> 3. b
> 4. b
> 5. a
> 6. a
> 7. b
> 8. b
> 9. a
> 10. b
> 11. a
> 
> Cheers.



Your indicated answers: (1) Decisive; (2) Tactical; (3) Declaring; (4) Yielding; (5) Merry; (6) Carefree; (7) Static; (8) Result; (9) Constructivist; (10) Democratic; (11) Negativist

If i got this right your quadra is uncertain (decisive, merry, democratic)
Sorry that wasnt that much of a help lol


----------



## Future2Future

karmachameleon said:


> Your indicated answers: (1) Decisive; (2) Tactical; (3) Declaring; (4) Yielding; (5) Merry; (6) Carefree; (7) Static; (8) Result; (9) Constructivist; (10) Democratic; (11) Negativist
> 
> If i got this right your quadra is uncertain (decisive, merry, democratic)
> Sorry that wasnt that much of a help lol


I can count to 11 :encouragement:


----------



## karmachameleon

Super Salmacis 64 said:


> I can count to 11 :encouragement:


That's great. I can too


----------



## Future2Future

karmachameleon said:


> That's great. I can too


You learn something new every day !  Nigel Tufnel would be proud.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

I thought reinin's didnt work before but it seems to work actually. It must be that when I was reading on them and deciding which one suits me best; at then end I was forgetting which ones I've chosen so it gets mixed up. When you do it like this, in a spreadsheet way, and bam it is working all of a sudden ! :crazy:

thanks @Kerik_S @counterintuitive :wink:


----------



## karmachameleon

> 0	.	.	.	(null/nonnull)
> 1 ....X	.	.	.	(extratim/introtim) E/I
> 2 ....X	.	.	.	(intuitive/sensing) I/S
> 3 ....X	.	.	.	(ethical/logical) E/L
> ======	4 ....x	.	.	.	(irrational/rational) (p/j)
> 6) A	5 ...EN	/ IS	.	.	(carefree/farsighted) Carefree
> 4) B	6 ...ET	/ IF	.	.	(obstinate/yielding) Yielding
> 7) B	7 ...Ej	/ Ip	.	.	(dynamic/static) Static
> 10) B	8 ...NF	/ ST	.	.	(aristocratic/democratic)	Democratic	“xxxx, xxxx Democrat” (???? Quadra)
> 2) B	9 ...Nj	/ Sp	.	.	(strategic/tactical) Tactical
> 9) A 10 ..Fp	/ Tj	.	.	(constructivist/emotivist)	Constructivist
> 11) A	11 .ENT	/ ESF /	INF / IST	(negativist/positivist) Negativist
> 1) A	12 .ENj	/ ESp /	INp / ISj	(decisive/judicious) Decisive	“Decisive, xxxx Democrat” (???? Quadra)
> 5) A	13 .EFj	/ ETp /	IFp / ITj	(merry/serious) Merry “Decisive, Merry Democrat” (? Quadra)
> 8) B	14 .NFp	/ NTj /	SFj / STp	(process/result) Result
> 
> 3) B 15 ENFj	/ENTp /ESFp /ESTj	(asking/declaring) Declaring
> .	.. INFp	/INTj /ISFj /ISTp


I think your highest is ESI 9/11 @Super Salmacis 64


----------



## karmachameleon

carefree, yielding, static, democratic, tactical, 
constructivist, negativist, decisive, merry, result
ALPHA
*7/11 ILE*
6/11 SEI
6/11 ESE
5/11 LII
BETA
5/11 EIE
6/11 LSI
*8/11 SLE*
5/11 IEI
GAMMA
3/11 SEE
6/11 ILI
6/11 LIE
*9/11 ESI*
DELTA
3/11 LSE
4/11 EII
6/11 IEE
3/11 SLI
@Super Salmacis 64


----------



## counterintuitive

Super Salmacis 64 said:


> Help a brother out :typingneko:
> 
> 1. a
> 2. b
> 3. b
> 4. b
> 5. a
> 6. a
> 7. b
> 8. b
> 9. a
> 10. b
> 11. a
> 
> Cheers.


Your indicated answers: (1) Decisive; (2) Tactical; (3) Declaring; (4) Yielding; (5) Merry; (6) Carefree; (7) Static; (8) Result; (9) Constructivist; (10) Democratic; (11) Negativist

Your results are most consistent with:
Quadra: Decisive, Merry, Democratic = Alpha
*ESI: 9/11*; SLE: 8/11; ILE: 7/11; LIE: 6/11; SEI: 6/11; LSI: 6/11; ESE: 6/11; IEE: 6/11; ILI: 6/11; IEI: 5/11; EIE: 5/11; LII: 5/11; EII: 4/11; SLI: 3/11; LSE: 3/11; SEE: 3/11

@karmachameleon was right 
ETA Sorry, I didn't see your post just above, haha, but yeah, what you said.


----------



## counterintuitive

karmachameleon said:


> Going to do it again because I didnt take enough time to understand the statements last time.


You probably already figured this out, but...

Your indicated answers: (1) Decisive; (2) ––; (3) Asking; (4) Yielding; (5) Merry; (6) ––; (7) Dynamic; (8) Result; (9) Emotivist; (10) Aristocratic; (11) Negativist

Your results are most consistent with:
Quadra: Decisive, Merry, Aristocratic = Beta
*IEI: 8/11*; SLE: 6/11; EIE: 6/11; LSE: 6/11; ESI: 5/11; LIE: 5/11; SEI: 5/11; LII: 5/11; LSI: 4/11; IEE: 4/11; SLI: 4/11; ILE: 3/11; ESE: 3/11; ILI: 3/11; SEE: 3/11; EII: 2/11

Lol so you're still IEI. ;D If I change (11) to "--" instead of Negativist, you're _still_ IEI.


----------



## karmachameleon

counterintuitive said:


> You probably already figured this out, but...
> 
> Your indicated answers: (1) Decisive; (2) ––; (3) Asking; (4) Yielding; (5) Merry; (6) ––; (7) Dynamic; (8) Result; (9) Emotivist; (10) Aristocratic; (11) Negativist
> 
> Your results are most consistent with:
> Quadra: Decisive, Merry, Aristocratic = Beta
> *IEI: 8/11*; SLE: 6/11; EIE: 6/11; LSE: 6/11; ESI: 5/11; LIE: 5/11; SEI: 5/11; LII: 5/11; LSI: 4/11; IEE: 4/11; SLI: 4/11; ILE: 3/11; ESE: 3/11; ILI: 3/11; SEE: 3/11; EII: 2/11
> 
> Lol so you're still IEI. ;D If I change (11) to "--" instead of Negativist, you're _still_ IEI.


I didn't actually, i was too lazy.
And lol, after i made my new answers i thought they were way different from the last one but then i looked at the old one and they were pretty much the same. Haha.


----------



## Future2Future

karmachameleon said:


> carefree, yielding, static, democratic, tactical,
> constructivist, negativist, decisive, merry, result
> ALPHA
> *7/11 ILE*
> 6/11 SEI
> 6/11 ESE
> 5/11 LII
> BETA
> 5/11 EIE
> 6/11 LSI
> *8/11 SLE*
> 5/11 IEI
> GAMMA
> 3/11 SEE
> 6/11 ILI
> 6/11 LIE
> *9/11 ESI*
> DELTA
> 3/11 LSE
> 4/11 EII
> 6/11 IEE
> 3/11 SLI
> @Super Salmacis 64





counterintuitive said:


> Your indicated answers: (1) Decisive; (2) Tactical; (3) Declaring; (4) Yielding; (5) Merry; (6) Carefree; (7) Static; (8) Result; (9) Constructivist; (10) Democratic; (11) Negativist
> 
> Your results are most consistent with:
> Quadra: Decisive, Merry, Democratic = Alpha
> *ESI: 9/11*; SLE: 8/11; ILE: 7/11; LIE: 6/11; SEI: 6/11; LSI: 6/11; ESE: 6/11; IEE: 6/11; ILI: 6/11; IEI: 5/11; EIE: 5/11; LII: 5/11; EII: 4/11; SLI: 3/11; LSE: 3/11; SEE: 3/11
> 
> @karmachameleon was right
> ETA Sorry, I didn't see your post just above, haha, but yeah, what you said.


Thanks a lot, mates ! 

I don't think ESI fits me at all but I can't really question the results anyway...


----------



## counterintuitive

Super Salmacis 64 said:


> Thanks a lot, mates !
> 
> I don't think ESI fits me at all but I can't really question the results anyway...


Ah, I probably should have looked at your results a little more closely. You tested Decisive, Merry, Democratic = Alpha Quadra, which excludes all but ILE, LII, ESE, SEI. It's odd to test highest on types outside of your quadra, but I think the same thing happened to a few other people in this thread.

Re-evaluating your result assuming Alpha for a moment:

ESI: 9/11; SLE: 8/11; *ILE: 7/11*; LIE: 6/11; *SEI: 6/11*; LSI: 6/11; *ESE: 6/11*; IEE: 6/11; ILI: 6/11; IEI: 5/11; EIE: 5/11; *LII: 5/11*; EII: 4/11; SLI: 3/11; LSE: 3/11; SEE: 3/11

You're actually most likely ILE. But that's just based on this particular result. Going by your signature, you'll probably think ILE is a better fit than its conflictor (ESI). ;D


----------



## Immolate

I'll give this a try. 

1. B
2. A
3. B
4. A
5. B
6. B
7. leaning B
8. A
9. A
10. leaning A
11. unsure

All insights welcome.


----------



## Future2Future

counterintuitive said:


> Ah, I probably should have looked at your results a little more closely. You tested Decisive, Merry, Democratic = Alpha Quadra, which excludes all but ILE, LII, ESE, SEI. It's odd to test highest on types outside of your quadra, but I think the same thing happened to a few other people in this thread.
> 
> Re-evaluating your result assuming Alpha for a moment:
> 
> ESI: 9/11; SLE: 8/11; *ILE: 7/11*; LIE: 6/11; *SEI: 6/11*; LSI: 6/11; *ESE: 6/11*; IEE: 6/11; ILI: 6/11; IEI: 5/11; EIE: 5/11; *LII: 5/11*; EII: 4/11; SLI: 3/11; LSE: 3/11; SEE: 3/11
> 
> You're actually most likely ILE. But that's just based on this particular result. Going by your signature, you'll probably think ILE is a better fit than its conflictor (ESI). ;D


ILE does seem to make much more sense, thanks for re-evaluating :ghost3:


----------



## counterintuitive

lets mosey said:


> I'll give this a try.
> 
> 1. B
> 2. A
> 3. B
> 4. A
> 5. B
> 6. B
> 7. leaning B
> 8. A
> 9. A
> 10. leaning A
> 11. unsure
> 
> All insights welcome.


Your indicated answers: (1) Judicious; (2) Strategic; (3) Declaring; (4) Obstinate; (5) Serious; (6) Farsighted; (7) Static; (8) Process; (9) Constructivist; (10) Aristocratic; (11) ––

Your results are most consistent with:
Quadra: Judicious, Serious, Aristocratic = Delta
*EII: 9/11*; SLE: 6/11; IEE: 6/11; SLI: 6/11; ILI: 6/11; SEE: 6/11; EIE: 5/11; LSE: 5/11; LII: 5/11; LSI: 5/11; ESE: 5/11; SEI: 4/11; ILE: 4/11; ESI: 3/11; LIE: 3/11; IEI: 2/11

OR If your indicated answers are: (1) Judicious; (2) Strategic; (3) Declaring; (4) Obstinate; (5) Serious; (6) Farsighted; (7) ––; (8) Process; (9) Constructivist; (10) ––; (11) ––

Your results are most consistent with:
Quadra: Judicious, Serious, –– = Delta
*EII: 7/11*; ILI: 6/11; SLI: 5/11; SEE: 5/11; ESE: 5/11; SLE: 4/11; IEE: 4/11; EIE: 4/11; LSE: 4/11; LII: 4/11; SEI: 4/11; LSI: 3/11; ILE: 3/11; LIE: 3/11; ESI: 2/11; IEI: 1/11




Super Salmacis 64 said:


> ILE does seem to make much more sense, thanks for re-evaluating :ghost3:


NP, but you might wanna check out the IEs or fill out a questionnaire or something. The Reinin dichotomies aren't definitive (if anything is, haha).


----------



## Immolate

counterintuitive said:


> Your indicated answers: (1) Judicious; (2) Strategic; (3) Declaring; (4) Obstinate; (5) Serious; (6) Farsighted; (7) Static; (8) Process; (9) Constructivist; (10) Aristocratic; (11) ––
> 
> Your results are most consistent with:
> Quadra: Judicious, Serious, Aristocratic = Delta
> *EII: 9/11*; SLE: 6/11; IEE: 6/11; SLI: 6/11; ILI: 6/11; SEE: 6/11; EIE: 5/11; LSE: 5/11; LII: 5/11; LSI: 5/11; ESE: 5/11; SEI: 4/11; ILE: 4/11; ESI: 3/11; LIE: 3/11; IEI: 2/11
> 
> OR If your indicated answers are: (1) Judicious; (2) Strategic; (3) Declaring; (4) Obstinate; (5) Serious; (6) Farsighted; (7) ––; (8) Process; (9) Constructivist; (10) ––; (11) ––
> 
> Your results are most consistent with:
> Quadra: Judicious, Serious, –– = Delta
> *EII: 7/11*; ILI: 6/11; SLI: 5/11; SEE: 5/11; ESE: 5/11; SLE: 4/11; IEE: 4/11; EIE: 4/11; LSE: 4/11; LII: 4/11; SEI: 4/11; LSI: 3/11; ILE: 3/11; LIE: 3/11; ESI: 2/11; IEI: 1/11


I do relate to delta quite a bit. Thanks for taking the time to answer.


----------



## Artorias

counterintuitive said:


> Well sure, if they typed themselves based on the functions and not the "letters" or some BS lol. I think I said this to you in your thread but I've noticed Ne and Ti are usually described pretty similarly so LII and ILE should be the same type in both systems. If I do turn out to be ILE then I would be the same in both systems like you. Lol but IDK how I would ever "know" that I was ILE or any other type, if I'm not sure yet after all this time. Lol


-Not really, Some of "INTJs" in the "MBTI system" were actually "LIIs" in "Socionics".
-Take a look at this :How to convert MBTI® type to Socionics type


----------



## counterintuitive

Artorias said:


> -Not really, Some of "INTJs" in the "MBTI system" were actually "LIIs" in "Socionics".
> -Take a look at this :How to convert MBTI® type to Socionics type


Well ok, but they might have mistyped in the MBTI using the "letters" and then come to Socionics and actually learned the functions. I don't think Ni-Te in MBTI should become Ti-Ne in Socionics. Ni/Ne and Ti/Te are pretty different. I'm only talking about people who typed themselves in the MBTI system using the functions (not necessarily the MBTI functions but some amalgam of function descriptions, lol).

The J/P switch for introverts thing is just based on ir/rationality not being the same as J/P in MBTI for introverts, i.e. MBTI IxxJs are irrationals (Pi dominant) and MBTI IxxPs are rationals (Ji dominant). So the J/P is wrong in MBTI for introverts. Socionics is just correcting it.


----------



## Artorias

counterintuitive said:


> Well ok, but they might have mistyped in the MBTI using the "letters" and then come to Socionics and actually learned the functions. I don't think Ni-Te in MBTI should become Ti-Ne in Socionics. Ni/Ne and Ti/Te are pretty different. I'm only talking about people who typed themselves in the MBTI system using the functions (not necessarily the MBTI functions but some amalgam of function descriptions, lol).
> 
> The J/P switch for introverts thing is just based on ir/rationality not being the same as J/P in MBTI for introverts, i.e. MBTI IxxJs are irrationals (Pi dominant) and MBTI IxxPs are rationals (Ji dominant). So the J/P is wrong in MBTI for introverts. Socionics is just correcting it.


-I was talking about "ENTPs" who were typed in terms of "Cognitive Functions".


----------



## 0+n*1

I went with my first answer or an answer that wasn't product of deep thought. I found it interesting that most of them are B. Also not very reliable (my answers, not the test), but please help me interpret possible types from this.



> a] stimulation before work maximizes performance, remaining alert and ready for the next task, having trouble unwinding after work is complete; begin work process immediately, assesing each individual task rather than preparing for the entire process; derive more satisfaction from the pay of employment than from the work environment
> 
> *b] relaxation before work maximizes performance, finding periods of rest between tasks at work, easily relaxing after work is complete; prepare for task carefully in order to work efficiently on a sort of “auto–pilot”; derive more satisfaction from the work environment itself more than the pay*





> a] set long–term goals, change methods for each goal if one method fails (flexible methods), rather have a few specific options than many options
> 
> *b] set short– to intermediate–term goals, change the specifics of each goal as new methods are attempted (flexible goals), rather have many options than just a few specific options*





> a] speak with a tone that is inquisitive rather than an instructive tone; easier time adressing an entire group of people all at once rather than one–at–a–time; prefer to have others ask questions in the middle of speech, and then resume speech after all questions have been addressed
> 
> *b] speak with a tone that is instructive/explanatory rather than inquisitive; easier time addressing people one–by–one rather than the entire group all at once; like to complete an entire speech, and then have others ask questions*





> a] personal space is violated when others insistently try to learn more about your ideas, beliefs and opinions; easily trust others to respectfully utilize your material possessions and social connections
> 
> *b] personal space is violated when others try to compel you to share your material possessions and social connections; have very little tendency to become defensive when others challenge your ideas*





> a] can detach oneself from an engaging group activity enough to realize consciously that the atmosphere is pleasant/unpleasant and the people are comfortable/uncomfortable; more informal when getting to know others, prefering to “go with the flow” and change ones closeness/distance to people as one learns more about them; would rather take into account all the differing opinions of a group and help the group understand that no single viewpoint is more “right” than any other; when the group makes a bad decision, you will ask them why they chose to make that decision and offer them a different perspective to help them make better team decisions in the future
> 
> *b] cannot easily detach oneself during an engaging group activity, assessing the atmosphere and the peoples' actions afterward rather than during the activity; more formal when getting to know others, prefering to follow a step–by–step process and know immediately where you're at in your closeness with others (able to clearly define when one has moved from acquaintance to friend, or vice–versa); would rather instruct a group before a discussion or collaboration, making sure they all understand the “right” way to approach the situation and are on the same page; when the group makes a bad decision, you will want to know who in the group had a misunderstanding of the “right” way of working, and address that particular person one–on–one to refresh their memory*





> a] work best by using information as it becomes available; prefer to begin problem solving process immediately and aquire more information during the process
> 
> b] work best by using information stored in memory; prefer to acquire all relevant information before you begin problem solving


Unsure



> a] see life as a continuous flow of time, and when one shares these life stories, they explain them as a connected chain of events, explaining how one event leads to the next as they tell the story, answering their listeners' questions about specific moments afterward; when describing ones viewpoints, one focuses on their relation to their society/surroundings rather than how their viewpoints have shaped their principles in life
> 
> *b] see life as a series of individual moments, and when one shares these life stories, they explain them one moment at a time before telling the listener how one moment led to the next; spend more time explaining what the individual moment was instead of what lead up to that moment; when describing ones viewpoints, one focuses on their principles rather than how their viewpoints affect other people*


Leaning B, but unsure.



> a] perform tasks in sequence, from start to finish; one task at a time rather than multi-tasking; in leisurely activities, like reading an article, one will read the sections in order; more concerned with how something is done rather than whether or not its done the most efficiently it can be
> 
> *b] perform tasks by switching between different parts of the task spontaneously, eventually finishing all of them; multi-tasking rather than one at a time; during leisure activities, like reading, one will skim the page and then focus intensely on the parts that are relevant; more concerned with getting something done efficiently rather than whether or not its done in a step–by–step way*





> a] business first, personal aspects later; like to return to familiar places to feel centered and grounded; while reading or watching something, if one really likes one part but not the whole thing, they're still likely to think about the parts that they liked afterward; prefers people offer advice rather than emotional support
> 
> *b] personal first, business aspects later; like to explore new places to feel most at ease; while reading or watching something, if one really likes certain parts and not the whole thing, they're more likely to remember whether or not they liked it as a whole afterward; prefers people offer emotional support than concrete advice*


I can and do talk about the parts of the whole that I liked/disliked pretty often, but I also notice that I don't like others' advice and sometimes I just want them to shut up when they start saying things that maybe I can figure out on my own, unless I ask but as soon as I think I grasp it or I can figure it out from there, I don't want to hear a word. I went for B for this reason, but I can see me interpreting it incorrectly.



> a] see the world as a collection of interacting groups; focus more on the similarities and differences of one group versus another group, rather than individual differences amongst members of the same group; if a group sends a representative to speak on their behalf, you will trust that this person will properly explain the motives and attitudes of the group
> 
> *b] see the world as a collection of individuals acting on their own accord; focus more on the individual differences between people, rather than what groups they may or may not be a part of; if a group of people send a representative to speak on their behalf, you would rather have them take you to the group to talk to people one–by–one to get an idea of the motives and attitudes of the group as a whole*





> a] this type of person tends to phrase things with “no”, “not”, “wasn't”, “isn't”, “I can't say for certain, but if you ask them, they won't steer you wrong”;
> “I hadn't read that many bad reviews on it” and follow by saying things like “but it wasn't some great experience like everyone was making it out to be.”
> 
> b] this type of person tends to phrase things with “definitely”, “it was”, “it is”, “They would know more than I can tell you about that. Go ask them.”
> “I read a lot of good reviews on it" and follow by saying things like “but it was actually pretty awful.”


Unsure.


----------



## Graveyard

counterintuitive said:


> Lol yes you said this several times :kitteh: I'm still surprised you're impressed.  I wonder if it's actually Te demonstrative you're seeing though? But then you probably wouldn't find it impressive but rather annoying
> 
> And as for my energy levels, yes, lol, I've been told quite a few times that I have the energy level of someone on cocaine or enormous amounts of caffeine even though I don't do cocaine at all and only drink coffee moderately. :crazy:


Again, I could never do such an organized exposition of information. As you all may know by now, I'm a hot (  ) mess, so ehh, yeahhh... It's impressive.

Regarding Te - goodness gracious no. My mother is Te DS and I feel just so bad whenever she mentions something about it. She makes me feel pretty bad about myself when she complains. 

Ah, your typical Ne-dom! Move along, people, case solved.


----------



## karmachameleon

@X0+n*1

judicious serious democrat quadra ?

ALPHA
ILE: 5/11
SEI: 5/11
ESE: 5/11
LII: 6/11

BETA: (quadra least likely)
EIE: 1/11
LSI: 4/11
SLE: 5/11
IEI: 4/11

GAMMA:
SEE: 4/11
ILI: 5/11
LIE: 6/11
*ESI: 7/11*


DELTA:
LSE: 5/11
EII: 4/11
IEE: 4/11
SLI: 2/11


----------



## counterintuitive

Artorias said:


> -I was talking about "ENTPs" who were typed in terms of "Cognitive Functions".


Well, that's what I said in response to you :kitteh: that ENTPs who typed themselves based on the functions should be ILE in Socionics as well. (Barring bad function descriptions, poor understanding of the functions, insufficient introspection, etc. - which are all problems for me, so... )

Anyway, I don't think relating myself to celebrities of unknown type is a good idea. I mean, people type them in the "guess the type" section or w/e but how do you really know what type they are? I sure don't. Even if I relate to them or don't relate to them, I can't be sure how that reflects on my type.




Graveyard said:


> Again, I could never do such an organized exposition of information. As you all may know by now, I'm a hot (  ) mess, so ehh, yeahhh... It's impressive.
> 
> Regarding Te - goodness gracious no. My mother is Te DS and I feel just so bad whenever she mentions something about it. She makes me feel pretty bad about myself when she complains.
> 
> Ah, your typical Ne-dom! Move along, people, case solved.


haha, well, thanks. :kitteh: You don't come across as a hot mess at all though. 

You feel bad because you want to provide her with Te but you can't? That sucks. :/

Idk, I think SxE can have a similar energy level to me. Some ExEs too.


----------



## Graveyard

counterintuitive said:


> haha, well, thanks. :kitteh: You don't come across as a hot mess at all though.
> 
> You feel bad because you want to provide her with Te but you can't? That sucks. :/
> 
> Idk, I think SxE can have a similar energy level to me. Some ExEs too.


Really? I thought I had the clumsy aura already. ;P

I won't get in much detail, but she makes me feel sad because I'll never be proficient in Te (as hard I try), and because I can't do anything to help her in this regard. 

Eh, it's kind of a silly joke. The MBTI "Ne" stereotype is the "lol im su randummzz!!!", so, yahh!


----------



## myst91

Artorias said:


> -I was just showing a "Possibility" .


And some possibilities are incorrect.




Graveyard said:


> I often told him how I found impressive the way he points out facts - he reminds me a lot of an ILE I once met, and of my SLE friend too. Probably has to do with Ti-creative, because that doesn't apply to you. You LSIs remind me of an exboyfriend.


How do we remind you of the ex?




> I think asymmetrical relationships are very unstable and constitute the usual "marriage" depicted in television; one of them needs to ask for permission to do X, the partner shrugs it off even though they're not okay with it. That's basically it. Anything else is has to do with circumstances rather than the type. For example, a supervision marriage in the XV century would have been far too diferrent from an actual one. So that might explain it?


I didn't really experience this with asymmetrical relationships.




> Human relationships are such a clusterfuck. I love it!







> However, the model does need some polishing. Ni-dom descriptions are very vague, to name one.


Create your own?!




counterintuitive said:


> (Bolded) Yeah that's what I was trying to articulate and yet another reason I doubted LII. I don't think my Ti is "on" that much tbh, I can bypass it. I still doubt Ti creative but it seems to make the most sense overall. I really don't think I could be Ti-dom, I just don't have enough Ti nor do I "use" Ti all the time (again, it's off so much of the time lol). I also think my Fe is pretty visible, yeah, I think it's a lot more visible than the Fe of Fe DS types.


Yeah, I can see how you bypass it.




> Is this in part due to you being a strong Se subtype of LSI?


Yep




> I think sometimes the ITR predictions are too specific and it doesn't pan out like that. Like I have conflictor-like relations with a solid 20% of people I know. :crazy:


:laughing:




> Lol yeah it's...a lot of data. :kitteh: Thanks again.


Np.




> But like I said in the other thread I can take care of the Si basics? Like I eat, drink, wear clothes, etc? That seems to contradict Si DS.


Well, somehow the Ne's have to survive without a dual around. Do you know anyone who does not eat and runs around naked? :laughing:




> OMG this actually sounds like Si fail the more I write :crazy:


Yes. :tongue:




> And as for clothing, I've never left the house naked, haha, but I realized when I read @Artorias 's questionnaire that his Si looked really good to me. I don't even have the grasp of fashion and home design norms that he does. I can't even choose/match colors


I recall the way you dressed in your video indicated bad Si too 




> I have to admit that having an spouse/SO who could like help me match clothes and who could cook food would be awesome, but like, I think they would feel used. I wouldn't give them anything in return (what do I help them with? lol) and they would just be giving without taking. I couldn't enter into a relationship like that.


Si egos supposedly like the Ne ideas or whatever :tongue:




counterintuitive said:


> But would Fe HA really do this frequently, for hours at a time, and rather enthusiastically?


Possible, yes.




> Yeah I think initiating is extraversion according to Berens or one of those MBTI theorists.


In socionics as well, actually. 

In official MBTI step II too, it's the core facet of I/E there.




> I think I could be like that-- Give me a few years and I will have pinpoint conscious control of it. But that's true, it can't be that conscious if I only noticed a week ago. I do think my control over it is very conscious now that I'm aware of it. Now I have a good grasp of how I'm expressing, exactly how to gesture or modulate my voice or whatever...it's very natural and easy for me.


I get to feel that way with Ni sometimes.




> Awww :kitteh:


roud:




> Lol I can see why you say that, but I've felt this way all my life. I never had that Ti detachment even as a kid. I always felt interconnected to everything and everyone. Though I suppose some of that could be "the wholeness of the external world" (Ne) rather than Fe. Lol.


It could be. I'm curious what @Word Dispenser thinks about this one in particular as I recall her talking about something like that once (wasn't necessarily the same thing - something about how she used to feel very social with anyone at least as a kid).




> I guess being able to switch easily between Ti/Fe suggests they are Creative/HA in some order... I think my Fe could pass for Creative and my Ti for HA, but neither xEI type seems to fit.


Yes.

Btw it's telling you considered ESE but not SEI. And you considered ILE too and LII more than SEI. -> Si is weakest function going by that heuristics.




> Would you believe I don't see the Ne in this? haha. A lot of what I think is "just normal" is actually Ne


Yeah the base function is like that.




> Ok but my Fe is like partially/mostly conscious _most_ of the time. I'm always consciously aware of things like how I'm affecting the overall atmosphere/mood of a place - that awareness doesn't shut off unless I'm alone. Even with little things like writing emails at work, I'm _constantly_ adjusting my phrasing, tone, etc to make it well-received by the other person. I make microadjustments as I'm going along, effortlessly. So it seems more than slightly conscious.
> 
> So are you only very rarely conscious of Fe?


I'm definitely less conscious of it than this. I do sometimes think of/pay attention to these things you list here.


----------



## myst91

Kerik_S said:


> Someone with B wouldn't set long-term goals "just fine", so that-- combined with the fact that your goals aren't "flexible", then _*you're A.*_


But I set short to intermediate term goals too a lot. They are more concrete and clear than the long term ones which are to be described in more vague phrasing. Still they are just as important as the immediate stuff. I don't really drop the immediate stuff but the longer term stuff I really really don't like to drop so all of this is quite inflexible yes. Otoh, I also don't change the methods so easily. 

So what do you think now?




> If politeness is the only hindrance, then you're still instructive. *So B*


I've learned pretty well to play the inquisitive role too though it may still just be politeness. I don't like it as much as the instructive version.




> It's not so much about being careful-- It's more about how reactive you are at the initial request.
> 
> Do you feel like you're stubborn and guarded about your opinions/ideals?


Request for a loan for example, vs request for me to share my thoughts on something? Please clarify.

I don't think I'm guarded about my opinions, if I have a firm conclusion on something then I'm readily vocal about it when I get in the mood to talk. But I will argue forever to defend my opinions.

I'm just as possessive of material stuff too, though.
　



> "Best" simply means that attempting to do otherwise would grate against your ego and basically preclude you from finishing. *You're A.* If you were B, you wouldn't be able to carry things out in an A way, and you wouldn't feel like B was a "waste of time".


B isn't necessarily a waste of time, this depends on the situation, which is what I said originally too. I definitely liked the cases too when I started by covering all information to get a complete understanding. It didn't grate against my ego and I finished fine. It really is situation dependent.

So how am I supposed to tell which is preferred?




> You wouldn't "mix up with the personal" if you were A. You'd compartmentalize from the beginning and be a high enough self-monitor to prevent it from happening. The formality would prevent the personal from leaking in, even if you got excited and the person said something that sparked a sense of personal familiarity-- you'd still be cautious about it and wait for more outward signs before you switch things up.
> 
> *Definitely B*


By default I do compartmentalize, as I said it's only inside my mind that the two get uncomfortably mixed. If the other party wanted to switch things to informal I'd still be hung up on this mix but I can switch to informal if they want to switch to that. I'm hung up on it because a formal situation is very different from an informal situation, for me.

Of course it's possible I don't notice myself slipping up on the compartmentalizing, sure.

So what do you think now?




> "It's a weird idea to assume that talking to people individually I'd get to learn anything about the group itself." absolutely rules out B.
> 
> *So A is correct*


Does anyone really think that an assigned representative doesn't represent the group.. hm, ok.

　


> I'm A, and those "longer phrases" don't feel weird to me at all.
> 
> *B is right.*


Yeah well A sounds some too indefinite way of putting things to me. 
　



> They're not as dubious as you make them out to be. Reinin dichotomies are rooted in permutations of combinations for Jungian dichtomies, so they're all about what you tend to do, and what will create the least amount of dystonia in your psyche (will "grate you" _the least_).


Yes they are dubious. There is no direct connection between the dichotomy permutations and the observed behaviours. Some of them seem better in this respect than others, though.




> It's not a matter of what sounds like "a good idea", but what your mind will rebel against the least. Getting a "nag" to do the opposite doesn't count as rebelling.
> _*Ignoring*_ the nag and continuing on in spite of it actually means your dichotomous psyche preference is _stronger_ than if you just bent and tried something else.


No, there can be other reasons for ignoring the nag. Like, trying to be polite in a situation.




> This is about your cognitive functions, not what sounds like a good idea (that's more super-id and superego if anything).
> 
> Think, in Socionics, Information Elements are essentially separate from the "slots" of Model A.
> 
> This is more about the Elements (ERITFSPL), rather than where they place in the Model (Ego, Super-Id, Id, Super-Ego).


Yeah, I know.

Though for the last one, I would say, some reinin dichotomies do depend on where the IEs place in the model. E.g. inert/contact F for constructivist/emotivist, evaluatory Ti/Te for obstinate/yielding, etc.


----------



## Graveyard

myst91 said:


> How do we remind you of the ex?


Well, you're very likeable, I'm drawn towards you, and you all have this "I know better than you" aura around you all and I definitely like that.



> I didn't really experience this with asymmetrical relationships.


Don't quote me on that; I'm weird.



>


Heeheeh! They're fun. Sometimes hurtful, but overall, fun!



> Create your own?!


Ah, I already have my own definition and criteria for Ni-doms. I can't put it into words, though.


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> Well, somehow the Ne's have to survive without a dual around. Do you know anyone who does not eat and runs around naked? :laughing:


Well, no, lol. I guess I'm just doing the bare minimum with Si to function as an adult. lol.



> I recall the way you dressed in your video indicated bad Si too


Lol really? That's kinda embarrassing, haha. I wear that kind of stuff all the time (outside of work). It was just jeans + t-shirt. :laughing:



> Si egos supposedly like the Ne ideas or whatever :tongue:


I guess. I wouldn't be willing to take care of someone's needs just to get free ideas but I guess maybe they would.



> In socionics as well, actually.
> 
> In official MBTI step II too, it's the core facet of I/E there.


Oh right, I forgot about the Step II thing.



> I think I could be like that-- Give me a few years and I will have pinpoint conscious control of it. But that's true, it can't be that conscious if I only noticed a week ago. I do think my control over it is very conscious now that I'm aware of it. Now I have a good grasp of how I'm expressing, exactly how to gesture or modulate my voice or whatever...it's very natural and easy for me.
> 
> 
> 
> I get to feel that way with Ni sometimes.
Click to expand...

Hm, ok. I guess that would point to Fe HA for me then 



> It could be. I'm curious what @Word Dispenser thinks about this one in particular as I recall her talking about something like that once (wasn't necessarily the same thing - something about how she used to feel very social with anyone at least as a kid).


Yeah, I was much more social as a kid and kinda became more quietly analytical as a teenager and now I'm kinda both at different times. I definitely wasn't the quiet, detached, analytical child.



> Btw it's telling you considered ESE but not SEI. And you considered ILE too and LII more than SEI. -> Si is weakest function going by that heuristics.


Weakest function as in PoLR? :crazy:

But yeah, I wouldn't mistake my Si for a lead function but obviously continue to see my Fe as potentially leading.  So that indicates Fe>Si.



> Yeah the base function is like that.


Yes, although Ti is not like that so that suggests ILE>LII anyway.



> Ok but my Fe is like partially/mostly conscious most of the time. I'm always consciously aware of things like how I'm affecting the overall atmosphere/mood of a place - that awareness doesn't shut off unless I'm alone. Even with little things like writing emails at work, I'm constantly adjusting my phrasing, tone, etc to make it well-received by the other person. I make microadjustments as I'm going along, effortlessly. So it seems more than slightly conscious.
> 
> So are you only very rarely conscious of Fe?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm definitely less conscious of it than this. I do sometimes think of/pay attention to these things you list here.
Click to expand...

OK so it's more like a "sometimes" thing and not kind of continuously there. Are you like what I described with Ni though?

Eh, after all of this and further interaction with Fe egos, I can see Fe HA. That seems like the right spot for my Fe.  It seems too valued and too conscious to be DS, but probably is not in ego. The possibility of Fe being in ego seems to keep circling back because it's fairly strong and conscious (indicating HA and not DS) and also highly valued.


----------



## Kerik_S

myst91 said:


> But I set short to intermediate term goals too a lot. They are more concrete and clear than the long term ones which are to be described in more vague phrasing. Still they are just as important as the immediate stuff. I don't really drop the immediate stuff but the longer term stuff I really really don't like to drop so all of this is quite inflexible yes. Otoh, I also don't change the methods so easily.
> 
> So what do you think now?


Inflexible. Long-term at all, even mixed in with short and intermediate. Still going with A.

　


myst91 said:


> I don't think I'm guarded about my opinions, if I have a firm conclusion on something then I'm readily vocal about it when I get in the mood to talk. But I will argue forever to defend my opinions.
> 
> I'm just as possessive of material stuff too, though.


I'd go with Obstinate, especially if it leaks over into material stuff, too. It's kind of like the example above with long-term and short-/intermediate.

All it takes is the presence of defending viewpoints, with or without the presence of defending materials.

　


myst91 said:


> B isn't necessarily a waste of time, this depends on the situation, which is what I said originally too. I definitely liked the cases too when I started by covering all information to get a complete understanding. It didn't grate against my ego and I finished fine. It really is situation dependent.
> 
> So how am I supposed to tell which is preferred?


Describe an impactful solution you came to recently, to a problem that would have taken longer than-- say-- 20 minutes to solve.

　


myst91 said:


> By default I do compartmentalize, as I said it's only inside my mind that the two get uncomfortably mixed. If the other party wanted to switch things to informal I'd still be hung up on this mix but I can switch to informal if they want to switch to that. I'm hung up on it because a formal situation is very different from an informal situation, for me.
> 
> Of course it's possible I don't notice myself slipping up on the compartmentalizing, sure.
> 
> So what do you think now?


I'm more interested in how you frame an evolving relationship, informal, as it progresses.

Do you feel like you have to have a moment of clarity where you're like "Oh, that means we're friends" before you dare say anything that could indicate that you have friend-like feelings for that person? When you are struck by the notion "Gee, So-And-So is acting like they're not my friend", do you tend to go cold on the person and be hesitant to treat them like you did before?

Also, how do handle making moves in a romantic relationship or prospective relationship ("dating")...?
Or, if you're more passive, how do you decide upon whether or not you will reciprocate, or answer questions without omitting certain nuances of your feelings? When do the floodgates open? And what does it take to get them open?

　


myst91 said:


> Does anyone really think that an assigned representative doesn't represent the group.. hm, ok.


I've had many people answer that question in the Individualist sense, and even some that said "It was the part about the representative that really sold me-- I would rather get to know the individuals."

　


myst91 said:


> Yeah well A sounds some too indefinite way of putting things to me.


Negativists tend to leave things as "Not X" without specifying exactly what Y is. Implication through antithesis.

　


myst91 said:


> No, there can be other reasons for ignoring the nag. Like, trying to be polite in a situation.


Some of these, if you were getting a nag and ignoring it for the sake of politeness, that would also send the force of your super-ego against an already "nagged at" ego, and you wouldn't be able to carry on without serious dissonance that you would take note of as more than simply "a nag." You'd be trippin' and it'd probably come across in your behavior and make the other person off-put enough for you to find another way to deal with the interaction.




myst91 said:


> Though for the last one, I would say, some reinin dichotomies do depend on where the IEs place in the model. E.g. inert/contact F for constructivist/emotivist, evaluatory Ti/Te for obstinate/yielding, etc.


The only one I've ever noted as connected to Model A in particular is Const/Emot, but it seems like an exception to the rule.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> Well, no, lol. I guess I'm just doing the bare minimum with Si to function as an adult. lol.
> 
> Lol really? That's kinda embarrassing, haha. I wear that kind of stuff all the time (outside of work). It was just jeans + t-shirt. :laughing:


I didn't mind lol just mentioning it as a pretty relevant datapoint for typing




> Yeah, I was much more social as a kid and kinda became more quietly analytical as a teenager and now I'm kinda both at different times. I definitely wasn't the quiet, detached, analytical child.


I was a pretty detached observer / lone wolf. Not analyzing much like LIIs though. More active than that.




> Weakest function as in PoLR? :crazy:


I meant weakest valued function, just left that out.




> OK so it's more like a "sometimes" thing and not kind of continuously there. Are you like what I described with Ni though?


Not this much, though it happens. My Ni isn't a strengthened function.

One thing to consider is dimensionality - you may feel very good at 2D Fe but it's not the same as 4D.




> Eh, after all of this and further interaction with Fe egos, I can see Fe HA. That seems like the right spot for my Fe.  It seems too valued and too conscious to be DS, but probably is not in ego. The possibility of Fe being in ego seems to keep circling back because it's fairly strong and conscious (indicating HA and not DS) and also highly valued.


Eh I was like this with Se, in terms of it being Base vs Creative... once I seriously considered Creative it really seemed like the right spot for it, even though at times I get to feel like it's Base function. Some people do actually see me as SLE based on superficial evalutions but it doesn't make nearly as much sense as LSI for me. So my point here is, it's normal to see some types as somewhat like you, them popping up as a possibility for you, but there's a difference between how well those fit and how well your actual type fits overall.


----------



## myst91

Kerik_S said:


> Inflexible. Long-term at all, even mixed in with short and intermediate. Still going with A.


Why do you give more importance to having long term stuff over having short term stuff?

Give me some example of someone changing the specifics of short/intermediate term goal instead of changing the method, I'd like to see how well I relate to that.




> I'd go with Obstinate, especially if it leaks over into material stuff, too. It's kind of like the example above with long-term and short-/intermediate.
> 
> All it takes is the presence of defending viewpoints, with or without the presence of defending materials.


Again, why do you give more importance to defending viewpoints over defending materials?　




> Describe an impactful solution you came to recently, to a problem that would have taken longer than-- say-- 20 minutes to solve.


What type of problem?




> I'm more interested in how you frame an evolving relationship, informal, as it progresses.
> 
> Do you feel like you have to have a moment of clarity where you're like "Oh, that means we're friends" before you dare say anything that could indicate that you have friend-like feelings for that person? When you are struck by the notion "Gee, So-And-So is acting like they're not my friend", do you tend to go cold on the person and be hesitant to treat them like you did before?


It's not one single moment of clarity, it needs to be a consistent trend over time before I can see the friendship as a definite thing. Part of that natural process are of course actions/situations coming up that are things you clearly don't do with a random stranger. On the other hand, when I do get to this point of seeing it as definite enough, I like to make this clear decision on the state of things. You can say I formalize the state at that point as a clear something. (I see this as very Ti, tbh because no feelings are involved in defining it.) After that point I still won't really say feely things like that unless I'm drawn enough into the situation for that by the other party.

If I see them acting like that, I'd be wary afterwards yes, until I can make it clear what was going on with that. And I will definitely get to that point where I will have it clarified. I need the logical understanding, again. In the meantime, I may still not act colder than before, depending on what the issue is. But as I said, I'd be wary for sure.




> Also, how do handle making moves in a romantic relationship or prospective relationship ("dating")...?
> Or, if you're more passive, how do you decide upon whether or not you will reciprocate, or answer questions without omitting certain nuances of your feelings? When do the floodgates open? And what does it take to get them open?


In such a prospective relationship, in terms of this, my focus is on getting to know them enough, takes time. Same as above really. This sudden floodgates idea is weird to me, tbh. And, if I answer questions without adding nuances of feelings, that's because they are not there at all or it would not yet feel natural to try and express such things at that moment, simple as that.
　
So what does all this sound like?




> I've had many people answer that question in the Individualist sense, and even some that said "It was the part about the representative that really sold me-- I would rather get to know the individuals."


That idea of getting to know the individuals to me seems really irrelevant - if you, as a member of the group, disagree with the group to the extent that you can't act together with them, then either have the group decision changed or don't act with them / leave the group, depending on what the issue is. 




> Negativists tend to leave things as "Not X" without specifying exactly what Y is. Implication through antithesis.


Without specifying it to themselves? I often say "no, not this" and I say nothing more while I'm perfectly clear on what "it is" instead. I just don't say it until someone asks about it or until I want to give a full explanation for some other reason.




> Some of these, if you were getting a nag and ignoring it for the sake of politeness, that would also send the force of your super-ego against an already "nagged at" ego, and you wouldn't be able to carry on without serious dissonance that you would take note of as more than simply "a nag." You'd be trippin' and it'd probably come across in your behavior and make the other person off-put enough for you to find another way to deal with the interaction.


I can't relate to this e.g. in terms of faking Asking for politeness. I can fake it fine even if it's a nag. I do get tired with it though so I do have some limits to it but not to the degree you describe here.




> The only one I've ever noted as connected to Model A in particular is Const/Emot, but it seems like an exception to the rule.


Well:

Constructivist/Emotivist: inert/contact F/T
Strategic/Tactical: inert/contact S/N
Obstinate/Yielding: evaluatory Ti/Te
Carefree/Farsighted: evaluatory Ni/Ne


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> I didn't mind lol just mentioning it as a pretty relevant datapoint for typing


haha ok, I didn't think you minded, it's just embarrassing because I walk around looking like that a lot. :crazy:



> I was a pretty detached observer / lone wolf. Not analyzing much like LIIs though. More active than that.


Detached observer sounds pretty Ti-dom yes 



> Not this much, though it happens. My Ni isn't a strengthened function.


Oh. So my Fe is probably a strengthened function to be that strong? I mean yeah, I think it's strengthened lol.



> One thing to consider is dimensionality - you may feel very good at 2D Fe but it's not the same as 4D.


Yeah I think it's only 2D, it seemed limited to norms in my questionnaire.



> Eh I was like this with Se, in terms of it being Base vs Creative... once I seriously considered Creative it really seemed like the right spot for it, even though at times I get to feel like it's Base function. Some people do actually see me as SLE based on superficial evalutions but it doesn't make nearly as much sense as LSI for me. So my point here is, it's normal to see some types as somewhat like you, them popping up as a possibility for you, but there's a difference between how well those fit and how well your actual type fits overall.


Yeah...I think that's accurate. Neither LII nor ESE nor EIE or any other option we've discussed _at some length_, lol :crazy: :crazy:, fits better than ILE. Lol. Though I expect them to circle back at some point and I'm sure people would see me as those types. Still, I appear to be stuck/cornered with ILE again. haha.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> Still, I appear to be stuck/cornered with ILE again. haha.


Haha poor you.


----------



## counterintuitive

@myst91

In case this helps... (I'm extremely B on that question # 2 btw)



> Give me some example of someone changing the specifics of short/intermediate term goal instead of changing the method, I'd like to see how well I relate to that.


Let's say I have a goal to finish X project by a week from now. As I'm working, let's say I come across a "discovery" that would result in a better final product. I'll immediately forget about the old goal in favor of a new goal based on the "discovery".

Sometimes these are quite radical changes to the goal and not just to its specifics. Once I was preparing a curriculum for a language class and one such "discovery" led me to change it to a class teaching people how to use Excel (as in the spreadsheet software).

In general, I seldom do things with a goal of where they are going to end up. I start in an exploratory manner and my goals follow naturally from my methods / emerge from my methods.

I'm always anticipating a better option on the horizon, so I don't set goals that would limit my ability to pursue better options. A goal, like choosing a single type , is _settling_ for just one or a few options. Lol.

Btw, you come across really Declaring/instructive to me, haha. Like even your question here: "Give me some example..." I would have phrased as "Could you give me an example...?" Even in other people's type threads, I'm like "Can you elaborate on this?" or "Can you describe how you do this?" rather than "Elaborate more please" or "Describe this more clearly" etc like you said. You're still polite, just instructive. 




myst91 said:


> Haha poor you.


We'll see how long it sticks this time! :crazy:


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> In case this helps... (I'm extremely B on that question # 2 btw)
> 
> Let's say I have a goal to finish X project by a week from now. As I'm working, let's say I come across a "discovery" that would result in a better final product. I'll immediately forget about the old goal in favor of a new goal based on the "discovery".
> 
> Sometimes these are quite radical changes to the goal and not just to its specifics. Once I was preparing a curriculum for a language class and one such "discovery" led me to change it to a class teaching people how to use Excel (as in the spreadsheet software).
> 
> In general, I seldom do things with a goal of where they are going to end up. I start in an exploratory manner and my goals follow naturally from my methods / emerge from my methods.
> 
> I'm always anticipating a better option on the horizon, so I don't set goals that would limit my ability to pursue better options. A goal, like choosing a single type , is _settling_ for just one or a few options. Lol.


Thanks for the description. Hmm, I'm definitely not this much Tactical. 




> Btw, you come across really Declaring/instructive to me, haha. Like even your question here: "Give me some example..." I would have phrased as "Could you give me an example...?" Even in other people's type threads, I'm like "Can you elaborate on this?" or "Can you describe how you do this?" rather than "Elaborate more please" or "Describe this more clearly" etc like you said. You're still polite, just instructive.


Yeah this is my more natural mode. 




> We'll see how long it sticks this time! :crazy:


:laughing:


----------



## counterintuitive

Here we go again.... I made it almost 72 hours this time! Impressive! :crazy:

@Graveyard since we talked about this briefly...

*I'm still not really convinced I'm Si seeking.* I find it really annoying when people try to feed me and point out that my lips are chapped or I'm sitting at a weird angle. Like, I just don't care. I don't want food from you. I'm trying to lose weight, not gain it. IDGAF about "comfort" or whatever. You want comfort, why don't ya just buy yourself a coffin and get in already. That's exaggerated but you know what I'm getting at. Why even live life if you're just going to spend it seeking "comfort" and neurotically obsessing over your bodily sensations and _maintaining_ homeostatis? Life isn't about maintaining stuff but _improving_ stuff! What is the point in even living if you're just going to do the same thing over and over again?

It could be inferior projection



> ENP (si) "...immobility never lasts, the earth never sits still. If you just sit in one place, how could you possibly go anywhere?"


Lol that actually sounds like what I wrote above.

But I still don't recognize Si as an area for improvement and seek it in other people. :crazy:

For some reason (if ILE) I overvalue my Fe HA almost like Creative and reject my Si DS. I don't project HA at all though, only DS.

In this post there is the following description of the Si type (Si dominant) by Marie-Louise Von Franz:



Von Franz said:


> The negative aspect of sensation is that the type gets stuck in concrete reality. As Jung once noted, for them the future does not exist, future possibilities do not exist, they are in the here and the now, and there is an iron curtain before them. They behave in life as though it will always be the same as it is now; they are incapable of conceiving that things might change.


I don't understand why you'd even continue to live if you thought like this. The thought of being stuck in reality :shocked:, with no future possibilities :shocked:, with an iron curtain before me :shocked:, with the prospect of life always being the same as it is now :shocked:... That would be awful! If I thought like that, I'd honestly kill myself. I don't understand how an Si-dom can actually live happily like this. I imagine Ne-doms would appreciate this stagnant Si perspective, but clearly, I don't.

ETA: So, as a more likely type, *SLE* would make sense. Si ignoring seems more likely than Si DS. Ne role could explain the Ne block in my questionnaire. But then we'd have the same problem as I'm not Ni seeking either. Lol.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> That's a different problem then, because superid _is_ ego-syntonic, just less so than ego (and moreso than unvalued, which are the most ego-dystonic).


No, superid isn't truly ego-syntonic. I would not want to be exercising my HA, let alone my DS on my own all day. It is fine if someone else does it. The DS especially is hardly to be called ego-syntonic, in my view. The HA could be so-so.




> This is kind of an aside but why does it keep coming back to this, where the dual is the solution to everything?


That's a big misunderstanding. I never claimed such a thing, the theory itself does not either.




> Sorry, I have to live in reality, not in magical Socionics candyland where there are compatible and intelligent duals everywhere offering me free help with things I find difficult.


It's a _theory_ on how people work, not magical candyland. I don't really see why so many people make this jump and assume that it's a magical solution to everything or whatever.




> Even for the little everyday tasks that pressure Si, I'd _rather_ rely on myself. I think it's psychologically unhealthy to become dependent on someone else, and modern psychology backs me up. Descriptions of "ideal" dual relationships sound like _codependence_. The more I read about them, the more I think I'm better off on my own. :laughing:


That's not how I see it. How do we define being dependent on someone else? Are you dependent on the farmers who grow food for you - yes. In this same fashion, you are dependent on sources that offer help for your superid, people who have your superid as their ego, and other sources, including inanimate ones. My understanding is that as long as you keep involved with society you will receive superid information too. You don't have to live with a dual, though it's a very nice bonus if other, non-socionics factors work out too.




> Fe is even less of an issue; again, I find people need my Fe more than the other way around.


I find your Fe -at least on this forum- much less consistent than Fe egos's Fe. But sure, it's cool enough Fe.




> Doing isn't my default mode, but I wouldn't say I'm _"not always against"_ doing - I'd say I'm usually _for_ doing, I just don't do.


That's how I should've worded it - you are not inclined to doing, which mostly means Ti>Te valuation really with low Se/Si and/or Se devaluation. So it's an Alpha thing the most but other people can be like this too.




> Again, I live in reality, not candyland; I don't only value some ~~intellectual~~ discussions or whatever, I value my paycheck, my livelihood, etc.


Don't try to apply the theory to everything like that. It's only one of many frameworks you may use to understand and navigate reality.




> These people overlap with the people in the Si care admission. And btw, these people are the ones redirecting my focus to Fe and especially Si. Once again, I'm freer and less stressed on my own.


If they are "redirecting" your focus in a stressful way, they aren't really your duals. 




counterintuitive said:


> Idk what "atmosphere pleasing to the senses" is because honestly I won't notice. Free exchange of emotional expression, sure, why not.


Yet another -consistent- expression of 1D Si. Fe valuing, yeah.




> Hell no. Please just get to the point and spare me the endless detail. So THIS is the fucking detail disease ESE/SEI seem to have. Fuck. This is why they narrate everything from start to finish while I'm like "GET TO THE FUCKING POINT!!!" This is fucking Fe/Si superid focus right here. THIS is what I meant above when I said "these people are the ones redirecting my focus to Fe and especially Si" So much for the dual taking care of Fe/Si for me. They aren't taking care of it, they're _stressing_ it. Fucking superid overwork. I'm better off alone.


Do you have a specific example of how they talk about these details? Si details are different from Se details. If you can give an example word by word (or at least similar enough) I can analyse it and see if it's Si or Se. 

I don't understand what you mean by them redirecting your focus to Fe and you are mentioning this for the second time - explain more please.




> No self-respecting ILE avoids "controversial and unpleasant subjects" :crazy: :crazy: I certainly _can_ avoid such subjects, very deftly actually - again this is part of protecting others' feelings in situations where I _want_ to do that - but it's not my first preference.
> 
> I'm not conflict avoidant and even thrive off it sometimes.


Hmm Word Dispenser is ILE-Ne or ILE-0 (balanced), maybe you are more the ILE-Ti variant, those may argue a lot :tongue:




> I mostly ignore others' advice and do what I think makes sense. Not usually based on past experience, though; I've often made very good decisions that fly in the face of past experience.


Nice 4D Ne again.




> Bolded, yes, but overall? No. My ideal group situation is in a legal advocacy setting for instance where we are working constructively together towards justice. Couldn't care less about the rest of that - jokes, movies, sports, food, drink - fuck it.


This is your personal preference. It's cool btw.




> Either way, fuck details.


Lol that 4D Ne.




> No. What is this fucking groupthink bullshit? If I share their observations, I'm more likely NOT to express it and to pretend to disagree. I do sometimes do the mental harmony thing, but that's when I'm _deliberately trying to preserve harmony_ with someone who will perceive disagreement as emotional disharmony. Again, it's not my preferred mode.
> 
> Plus, I know a lot of people who consistently "observe" BS like "all the women at my office are bad employees, they should be fired" - while in reality it is hiiiiighly unlikely that "all" the women in your office are truly bad employees. I'm sure as hell not going to agree with that kind of biased BS, you better have some damn good evidence for that and I don't ever see it.


Nice Ti.




> I challenge these and other viewpoints. I have no problem disrupting harmony in favor of truth. I'm pretty sure I'm not naturally most comfortable with conflictuous environments, but I'm just so used to constant disharmony/strife and tense/uneasy emotional atmospheres that it honestly feels somewhat uncomfortable/"off"/weird when there is peace and harmony. So I can't see myself enjoying a "fun", harmonious, comfortable atmosphere, and I don't even grasp "fun" as a concept-- people ask what I do for "fun" or what makes me "happy" and I truly do not know how to answer.


That seems to come with the territory of being a social justice fighter. 




> Overall, after reading this, I see alphas as the naive idiots of the world, the people on whom I feast


That's a pretty black and white stereotype.




> I'm not group-oriented enough to be alpha, I'm much more intellectually independent than this describes. I don't need people to agree with my views. I don't need constant emotional affirmation from like-minded people. Etc.


Ti roud:




> The more I think about this, the more I realize that my life's bottom line, to me, is simply improvement of systems in a way that improves the overall state of humanity. I am a systems thinker, for sure, but not for its own sake-- it's all about improvement of the system. And a major criteria on which "improvement" (_positive_ change) is judged (as opposed to neutral or negative changes) is in how the change would improve the state of humanity as a whole.


Does sound cool. Btw worded very Ti again.




counterintuitive said:


> When I _do_ want to protect others' feelings, I'm pretty damn good at it-- I'd never consider myself clueless in that regard. I'm very clear on what is likely to cause offense/upset and can deftly avoid it as necessary. I haven't accidentally offended someone in a looooong time, probably 2-3 years.


Only deliberately? :tongue:




> I don't deliberately offend people, but sometimes something needs to be said - for instance, the child marriage stuff - and I don't give a fuck if it's offensive. Other times, like at work if I have to critique a coworker's project, or (more commonly) inform a contractor that they lost their bid, I'll reframe the truth in a way that won't be upsetting.
> 
> ETA: So, all in all, it sounds like I'm stronger with Fe than you are given that I _can_ protect people's feelings and not offend people if I so choose, yet at the same time, it doesn't bother me as much if I do offend people and I recognize that sometimes it needs to be done-- which suggests it's not an area of insecurity for me, as I can take criticism in this area without it affecting my self-esteem.


That's interesting. If all this is true then, what you do on this forum mustn't be representative of what you do with Fe IRL then. 




counterintuitive said:


> I see bringing these unrealistic possibilities into legal discussions as trolling. Certainly not productive in writing better laws and ensuring justice.


I actually agree on this one. I couldn't believe what Word Dispenser wrote. 




> I've already had a video interview with Entropic.


What did he conclude as your typing?




counterintuitive said:


> I even talked about this issue specifically in my 40Q thread and it brought to light that my focus is primarily on internal consistency of the law as a system. It doesn't hurt that would also resolve issues with forced marriages being legal. The human element drives me quite a bit - I think it is unjust and unfair and I aim to stop it. I just approach it in a fairly technical manner by looking at inconsistent laws.


Ah neat Ti. Yes, I'm driven a lot by unfairness too as I think I already said earlier. I'm technical with it like you. :happy:




counterintuitive said:


> _"I guess I could be OK at this stuff if I tried, but I just don't really think about it to be honest."_ Suggests... Fi is in id block? Because I don't consciously think of this stuff, like at all, lol, but I probably wouldn't be horrible at it if I did. So Fi ignoring? Fi demonstrative? (...) And I relate to a lot of what you said, actually. I'm also sure I don't do this consciously, so it must be vital for me as well. Poof, there goes Ti ego for me. haha.


PoLR isn't very conscious either.




counterintuitive said:


> I don't talk about things that are personal, but I've also had people divulge extremely personal information to me at first meeting and I can deal with that OK. I don't think I consider someone an asshole quite as easily as you do, but I really only start to treat someone differently if they behave in a way that is disruptive or offensive to the overall group. Like, I don't care if you offend me , and that is pretty hard to do without an overt threat. I'm much more concerned about the welfare of the overall group.
> 
> I'm also quite confident now that my Fe is situational after all. I do not think it is invariant to situations. It's definitely at least norms level, but I think I can very easily apply norms to new situations, it's not a point of weakness for me at all. Which brings me back to reconsidering Fe ego. Lol. :crazy:


I would not type by such obscure properties of functions if it's not yet even clear what would be in Ego block. Don't mix up the priorities roud:

But if you insist on Fe base then you would have to be EIE. Because that Si of yours is not ever going to be any better than 1D :laughing: In this case -if you want to try on Fe base yet again-, see if you have conscious Ni in Ego or not and whether you value Se or not. And does the Beta quadra fit better than the Alpha quadra description that you've already taken apart?


----------



## myst91

Word Dispenser said:


> In this case, I would explore _why _they want to marry off their 15 year olds, first off. In order to engage in a proper debate, one must understand the other perspective. And that is a very interesting and unique perspective.
> 
> In this day and age, I would think it would be really ill-planned to be marrying off 15 year olds, since 15 year olds generally wear their hair in their face and attempt to live in the darkest part of the house in order to derive nutrients from the shadows... They haven't quite fully developed their antennaes yet.
> 
> That said, as we all know, back in medieval yore, it was a different story. Mainly, I think, due to 15 year olds being Gods. They were seamstresses, chefs, artists, and polite beyond comprehension. Their maturity likely rivals, or surpasses mine, at this moment in time.
> 
> So, if this is a 15 year old God we're talking about, I'd really like to know, so that I could see whether I should be worshipping them or not. :kitteh:


Not to offend but - You seem really torn off from reality or something.  I'm sure you didn't have bad intentions but... I'm with @counterintuitive on this one, it's clearly not something to joke about.

To get back into the type discussion, I have no clear conclusion as to whether this indicates anything on sociotype or not. I've seen ILEs take things just as seriously as counterintuitive did it here when it was about their pet projects or whatever they passionately believed in, including humanistic topics.


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> Not to offend but - You seem really torn off from reality or something.  I'm sure you didn't have bad intentions but... I'm with @counterintuitive on this one, it's clearly not something to joke about.
> 
> To get back into the type discussion, I have no clear conclusion as to whether this indicates anything on sociotype or not. I've seen ILEs take things just as seriously as counterintuitive did it here when it was about their pet projects or whatever they passionately believed in, including humanistic topics.


I'm responding to your other post but just to avoid a potential misunderstanding...

I realized only later that @Word Dispenser was using the God thing as an analogy for a very mature 15 year old. That totally went over my head, I completely missed it. Not that a person of any maturity or any age should be forced into marriage, of course (and in many places there are laws against forced marriage between adults as well). I clarified later that I was talking about forced marriage specifically and not all child marriage (there are places with consensual child marriage is allowed, like between two 16 year olds, with their and their parents' consent).

But yeah, TBH if it is an ILE or Alpha thing to joke about this stuff then I'm perfectly happy not to be ILE or Alpha. :crazy:


----------



## Word Dispenser

myst91 said:


> Not to offend but - You seem really torn off from reality or something.  I'm sure you didn't have bad intentions but... I'm with @_counterintuitive_ on this one, it's clearly not something to joke about.
> 
> To get back into the type discussion, I have no clear conclusion as to whether this indicates anything on sociotype or not. I've seen ILEs take things just as seriously as counterintuitive did it here when it was about their pet projects or whatever they passionately believed in, including humanistic topics.


I've said it once, and I'll say it again-- Behaviour does not equal cognition. 

I may joke about and/or attempt to keep this subject light as opposed to heavy, whereas another ILE could be my complete opposite. I don't dispute that.

I also don't really know how @counterintuitive types themselves, and I have no actual contention against whatever they believe their type to be, ILE or not. I was only offering a mention to Entropic to see how he saw this interaction.


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> No, superid isn't truly ego-syntonic. I would not want to be exercising my HA, let alone my DS on my own all day. It is fine if someone else does it. The DS especially is hardly to be called ego-syntonic, in my view. The HA could be so-so.


Ego-syntonic doesn't have to do with comfort of use though, it has to do with how consistent it is with your self-image and the goals of the ego.



> That's a big misunderstanding. I never claimed such a thing, the theory itself does not either.
> 
> It's a _theory_ on how people work, not magical candyland. I don't really see why so many people make this jump and assume that it's a magical solution to everything or whatever.


No it's not you or the "official" theory. It's just what I see around the forum and on 16types especially, people fangirling about duality 



> That's not how I see it. How do we define being dependent on someone else? Are you dependent on the farmers who grow food for you - yes. In this same fashion, you are dependent on sources that offer help for your superid, people who have your superid as their ego, and other sources, including inanimate ones. My understanding is that as long as you keep involved with society you will receive superid information too. You don't have to live with a dual, though it's a very nice bonus if other, non-socionics factors work out too.


This makes a lot more sense, thanks. I get that sense of dependence on overall society for sure. There are always other people taking care of my superid even if they are not directly involved with me.



> That's how I should've worded it - you are not inclined to doing, which mostly means Ti>Te valuation really with low Se/Si and/or Se devaluation. So it's an Alpha thing the most but other people can be like this too.


Well that makes sense, Alphas are the only quadra that devalue both Te and Se.



> Do you have a specific example of how they talk about these details? Si details are different from Se details. If you can give an example word by word (or at least similar enough) I can analyse it and see if it's Si or Se.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by them redirecting your focus to Fe and you are mentioning this for the second time - explain more please.


It's more noticeable with Si than with Fe, so I'll go with that. But. I just mean like, they ask me "what did you eat for lunch?" and no amount of details is enough until I've listed off (i.e. made up) every ingredient. Only then will they stop badgering me for details. That kind of detail focus is stressful for me. And when they talk it's like "I had a salad for lunch. It had tomatos, pickles, blah blah blah..." they can't just sum up with "I ate lunch" or even just lunch out entirely.

ETA: My ESE forum friend posted something similar here:



> During the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil, Argentina's #10, Lionel Messi, scored a solo left-footed shot which bounced into goal by the left post at the 65th minute - 64th minute and 30 seconds - against Bosnia and Herzegovina during the first match of Group F on Sunday, June 15th, 2014, which was also Father's Day that year, at 19:21EST, in Rio de Janeiro


For me to follow details like this, especially spoken IRL rather than written, is pretty stressful, yeah.



> Hmm Word Dispenser is ILE-Ne or ILE-0 (balanced), maybe you are more the ILE-Ti variant, those may argue a lot :tongue:


I thought I was ILE-Ne last week? :tongue: In any case I do not think I repress Fe as much as ILE-Ti. But, I have noticed that I take Ti somewhat more seriously than xLEs usually do, and can even be somewhat rigid at times, while still not as much as Ti-doms. Could a Ti subtype explain that? I also have a more serious and "heavier" approach to things.



> No. What is this fucking groupthink bullshit? If I share their observations, I'm more likely NOT to express it and to pretend to disagree. I do sometimes do the mental harmony thing, but that's when I'm deliberately trying to preserve harmony with someone who will perceive disagreement as emotional disharmony. Again, it's not my preferred mode.
> 
> Plus, I know a lot of people who consistently "observe" BS like "all the women at my office are bad employees, they should be fired" - while in reality it is hiiiiighly unlikely that "all" the women in your office are truly bad employees. I'm sure as hell not going to agree with that kind of biased BS, you better have some damn good evidence for that and I don't ever see it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice Ti.
Click to expand...

All Alpha NTs have strong Ti, yet they are still Alphas. So how does strong Ti fit with the Alpha quadra groupthink description?



> That seems to come with the territory of being a social justice fighter.


Lol well let's differentiate between justice and _social_ justice here, most social justice flies in the face of actual justice.  But your larger point is taken.



> I'm not group-oriented enough to be alpha, I'm much more intellectually independent than this describes. I don't need people to agree with my views. I don't need constant emotional affirmation from like-minded people. Etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Ti roud:
Click to expand...

Lol now that I read it again, that sounds like a Ti assertion alright.  Hm...this whole Alpha quadra description pushed me pretty hard toward Fe, and I think that's why I started asserting Ti; that's why my response has a kind of "fuck the group, I think for myself!!!" vibe. Lol. I didn't even notice but now that I read it again, it's full of Ti assertions.



> That's interesting. If all this is true then, what you do on this forum mustn't be representative of what you do with Fe IRL then.


I'm much better with Fe IRL, yeah. I have the Fe filter "on" for like 8-12 hours a day; when I come home (and post on this forum) the filter is already off. Lol



> What did he conclude as your typing?


His conclusion was...highly consistent with the rest of our discussions. 



> Ah neat Ti. Yes, I'm driven a lot by unfairness too as I think I already said earlier. I'm technical with it like you. :happy:


Yes I remember we talked about that  I do think it is a Ti focus.



> PoLR isn't very conscious either.
> 
> I would not type by such obscure properties of functions if it's not yet even clear what would be in Ego block. Don't mix up the priorities roud:
> 
> But if you insist on Fe base then you would have to be EIE. Because that Si of yours is not ever going to be any better than 1D :laughing: In this case -if you want to try on Fe base yet again-, see if you have conscious Ni in Ego or not and whether you value Se or not. And does the Beta quadra fit better than the Alpha quadra description that you've already taken apart?


I find it hard to see Se/Ni valuing but I can check again...especially conscious Ni creative... and Ti DS really...doesn't work. I could maybe make sense of Fe creative and Ti HA, but I do not think my Si is dominant :shocked: and again I don't see Ni - but at least if I'm IEI the absent Ni could be explained by base function being so natural I don't see it - whereas Ni creative of EIE would be fully visible and I can't see it. I will look at the Beta description though, I'll make another post for that one.

ETA next day: OK so I observed myself at work today and I think I'm not constantly aware of the Fe stuff I mentioned earlier. I am aware a lot of the time, and definitely when actually interacting with someone (in person, phone, email, anything). But if I'm doing something else (like working) with people (coworkers) _around_ but not actually interacting, I'm not usually focused on how I'm affecting their emotions, moods, etc. I'm not consciously aware of it as much as I thought I was. It kind of dips out of awareness sometimes. It's definitely there in the background most of the time, but my primary focus isn't on Fe information generally. So yeah. I don't think I'm Fe ego. But still quite aware of Fe 

-----------

What do you think about this though? Does it seem Se valuing? (from here) Idk if I'm interpreting words like challenge or conflict (for instance) differently than an Se valuer would, in the first place.



http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/740810-quadral-complexes-stratiyevskaya-8.html#post25548097 said:


> (...) I didn't have anything much to be stressed out about, and I literally drove myself crazy trying to figure out what I'm supposed to DO now. I felt dulled and like I was wasting my time without any challenge in my life to overcome. Everything was going way too smoothly to be real. Even the actual "challenges" I encountered, I could deal with calmly and without much effort.
> 
> Luckily all that mental torment managed to help me discover I DO have some huge obstacles to overcome, still, and I actually feel relieved. The tasks ahead are so daunting that I do not know how I will accomplish them and when, but at least there's the comfort of having something to think about and work towards. (...)


I can actually relate to this too a lot. (But perhaps not in the same way.) If things are going too smoothly I shake them up. I want something to work _towards_ all the time as well, some kind of strife or imperfection is always in mind, even if one is not "obvious" to other people I will see one.  Otherwise I'm just sitting there idling. It's too...idle. Too mentally idle. I don't need to "do" stuff physically per se but there has to be something going, something thinking, something cooking (not literally ), something I'm working on, whatever it is there has to be SOMETHING or ... I don't know, there's just no point in living otherwise, is there? I mean if everything is already happy-happy and settled, then what is the point in living? It is like there is always a struggle or a sort of conflict in my mind, in my outlook, even if there is none in "reality" per se... I can't have peace and quiet and tranquility and all that crap , I have to have some kind of internal "fight" going, some kind of obstacle to overcome, a challenge.



> I feel like my life is just one long self-improvement spree. And honestly, I don't even feel discouraged by that realization.


Me neither! I agree - a self-improvement spree and for me it is also something of a world-improvement spree... Nothing can remain as it is. I actually find it inspiring


----------



## taqwoman

how's Counterintuitive's Typing Thread going? any conclusions?

i'm glad i had a decisive IEI type me


----------



## Tellus

counterintuitive said:


> Also. Are they (Reinin dichotomies) actually reliable in typing people? I just want to see what most probably types are based on that. For curiosity's sake.
> 
> Thanks :crazy:


No, they are not reliable for typing people, so I recommend the dichotomies instead. N vs. S is easier than IN + ES vs. EN + IS.


----------



## counterintuitive

*wikisocion beta quadra description does not fit either*

Alright so here's the Beta description. I forgot to do this lol.



> Dominant elements
> 
> Ti blocked with Se, Symbol l.gif Symbol f.gif
> 
> Beta quadra types prefer situations where the power structure and hierarchy is clearly defined according to consistent rules where ambiguities are minimized.


No, I don't really grasp the power structure and hierarchy stuff tbh.



> Beta quadra types are more confident analysing realistic characteristics of situations, people, and objects, rather than alternative and could-it-be scenarios.


I can analyze realistic characteristics, but I'm not sure I'd say I'm _more_ confident in that than in hypothetical scenarios. I think I'm actually confident with hypotheticals than reality, lol! (So that sounds pretty Ne > Se)



> Beta quadra types are inclined to attribute to a new acquaintance traits that they have previously observed in other individuals belonging to the same group as they see the new acquaintance as belonging to (Aristocracy).
> Beta quadra types are inclined to *look for general rules explaining people, politics, mechanisms and trends, rules that once defined can be applied generally*, rather than go about things in a case-by-case way.


I do tend to see general trends that explain things, or similarities between different things, etc. I don't look for them deliberately, but that tends to be what I see.



> Beta quadra types are *energized by competitive situations where analytical tactics are emphasized.*


I think so, it just depends on what is meant by a competitive situation. I'm thinking of some debates/arguments or the card games I mentioned earlier. Those get competitive as I play for money.  And yeah, real-time analysis is necessary to play games like that. I'm not sure if my preference is for the competitive gameplay described here, or the more lighthearted gameplay of Alpha. For sure though I'm not averse to a competitive atmosphere. I do think a competitive atmosphere wears me down faster than a lighthearted atmosphere, though.



> Fe blocked with Ni, Symbol e.gif Symbol t.gif
> 
> Beta types tend to enjoy group activities where *the whole group participates in generating a common emotional atmosphere*, as in laughing at jokes, etc.


Yes, I think this was also in the Alpha one  Just seems like a Merry trait.



> Beta types tend to feel *energized in the presence of people who share their beliefs* and express them with obvious enthusiasm and emotion.


"energized in the presence of people who share their beliefs" - maybe, not sure though. Don't care that much about "express them with obvious enthusiasm and emotion". I'm more interested in your reasoning than your emotional displays, lol.



> Beta types tend to give more value to feelings *when they are demonstrated with clear emotional expression*, and *tend to increase the level of their own emotional expression in order to get a reaction from other people.*


Well, I can't tell how people feel at all unless they're expressing it. Lol. I can pick up on some subtle expressions though. And yes, like I said earlier, I sometimes "turn up" my own emotional expressions in situations that are awkward to try to fix the awkwardness.



> Beta types tend to describe personal views of special meaning with "poetic" or "dramatic" expressions and language.
> Beta types are *often deeply concerned about social issues and the direction the world is heading.* They believe that apathy is a significant cause of societal problems, and work to fight against it.


Bolded: Clearly! :crazy: I dunno about the apathy thing though. I'm generally apathetic myself tbh, with the exception of the justice stuff I've mentioned.



> Subdued elements
> 
> Fi blocked with Ne, Symbol r.gif Symbol i.gif
> 
> Beta types are *not inclined to enjoy discussions of personal experiences when the focus is on a person's own inner feelings*, especially when described in a subdued way.
> Beta types tend to be skeptical of another individual's potential for personal growth in terms of abilities and character, and dislike being the subject of such a discussion by others about themselves.


The bolded yes, but the second part is definitely no. I'm not "skeptical of another individual's potential for personal growth" at all. That's limiting 



> Te blocked with Si, Symbol p.gif Symbol s.gif
> 
> Beta types *tend to look down on nuts-and-bolts, detailed work* as a source of success, *preferring to focus on "vision"* and leadership.


Bolded yes. I believe my preferred phrasing was "fuck details".  I definitely look down on detailed work in favor of the larger vision. I don't care about leadership though haha.



> Beta types don't so much enjoy relaxed personal activities as they do competitive group activities.


Either way on this, again. I'm ok with personal or group, relaxed or competitive. *shrug*



> Group behavior
> 
> *Preference for larger groups where participation is "collective" rather than focused on individuals for any length of time*, but with likely "domination" by more assertive individuals. This means that beta groups discuss topics that everyone could contribute to. *Frequent unexplained inside jokes are considered impolite because they exclude other people.* Jokes are loud and general, often about stereotypes. *Betas attempt to draw others into the group activity:* for example, in a situation where there are "group rituals" going on (as in drinking, dancing, etc), there is good-natured pressure on "outsiders" to also participate in them, with a sort of puzzled dismay if they prefer not to. They also try to draw attention to people who might otherwise feel left out - usually this is done with general jokes directed at individuals. In more subdued moments, *discussion of ideas involving present trends and political implications*, with strong views voiced. Personal experiences tend to be discussed from the point of view of their external impact rather than the individual's own personal view of them.


The bolded is a close fit. But domination? No, I find that obnoxious tbh. I do try to draw people into groups as I've said, but I do it in a really opposite way to this, lol. I don't pressure them and I don't draw the group's attention to them, I go to them and try to draw them into the group, not draw the group to them. I also don't joke at others' expense, especially at the expense of people who are already "outsiders"; almost all of my jokes are at my own expense. I understand if they don't want to be involved in the group, no dismay from me. I find this method of drawing people in too "aggressive" and I tend to do it more "gently" haha.



> When larger social events are organized by Betas (such as parties, receptions etc), they show an inclination to promote activities that will lead to the guests involved as a single group, such as games and shows; dislike for the "quieter" form of events where guests tend to quietly form smaller groups in more intimate atmospheres, which Betas tend to see as boring.


I could go either way on this - either people involved as one big group, or breaking off into smaller groups. I find people naturally break off into smaller groups most of the time and I don't see any issue with that. *shrug*



> For Betas atmosphere is more important than specific activity or topic. Groups of betas spend time together to entertain each other. They exchange fun (and often loud) stories to feed the atmosphere, so that the group energy won't run out. People talk fast and they often add comments to other people's stories if they feel that the pace is slowing down. When someone starts to talk, he takes on the obligation to entertain for the duration of the monologue and, in a friendly group, other people only interrupt to try and help him keep control of the atmosphere.


This like the Alpha description seems to prioritize atmosphere and entertainment over specific topics, which doesn't work for me. Most groups I'm involved in have a specific topic that is the focus, or a specific activity that we are doing together, and I'm there for that focus or that activity and secondarily for the group atmosphere. I _am_ there also for the group atmosphere and "teamwork" sense, lol, but it's secondary.



> *Talking about personal matters in a group is not something that Betas generally do. It's viewed almost as treachery when something that was told in a one-on-one conversation is retold in front of a group*, or when someone criticizes another person's traits in front of the group. Betas believe *such things should be told in private and should not be used to embarrass or belittle a friend.*


Yes, I don't discuss personal matters in a group usually and I definitely don't air private conversations in public, especially not without the permission of the other party involved in the private conversation. Relevant example, I don't air the contents of private messages out in the open forum, unless it's someone I've talked to extensively and we have a mutual understanding. A few folks I've talked to a lot have summarized our PM discussions in the open forum and that's not an issue. I try to deliver criticism in a one-on-one format, yes, I generally don't want to embarrass people in public.



> *Betas also don't like it when people tell long, slow stories. Betas try to be polite and listen to the story, and they will forgive you if it was boring for them,* but if someone does it too often they might not be invited back. Betas restrict long-winded stories to one-on-one conversations. However, IEIs are more likely to adjust to the slower stories because they are very flexible conversationalists.


Haha, well, yeah. As said, long, droning stories are annoying, especially if detailed, and I'm just like "get to the point!" So this fits. I'll tolerate it for the sake of conversation sometimes but that's about it. Lol. Please summarize! What I didn't bold doesn't fit though.


Alright, so all in all, this doesn't seem to fit either. Some aspects fit better, others fit worse. Overall, I'm not as competitive as this, while I'm also not as uncompetitive as the Alpha one. Obviously the activistic kind of stuff is better reflected here than in the Alpha one, but that alone probably doesn't say much.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Counter,

This thread just got bumped. Figured I'd reply to original post. No idea what y'all are talking about now.

The Reinin are plagued by poorly written and difficult to comprehend descriptions. One of the online test sites starts with a Z, I believe. That one rules out various types as you go clicking choices (dynamically updates each click). Go there. Read through the various dichotomies besides the E/I, T/F, N/S, and j/p ones. Remember 3-5 of them that make the most sense to you and are easiest to decide. Then answer those 3-5 in order of ease to comprehend/answer. I believe after just 3, it narrows to a single TIM, which is probably the same as if you answered just the E/I, T/F, N/S, and j/p ones. Once you know that type, if your base 4 dichotomies are off on TIM compared to the Reinin TIM, you can introspect to determine the possibility of one or more of the base 4 dichotomies being wrong and why.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> Ego-syntonic doesn't have to do with comfort of use though, it has to do with how consistent it is with your self-image and the goals of the ego.


Yes, and superid does not fully match that if you were to do superid yourself. Only partially for the HA and even less so for the DS function.




> No it's not you or the "official" theory. It's just what I see around the forum and on 16types especially, people fangirling about duality


Yah uh it's annoying.




> This makes a lot more sense, thanks. I get that sense of dependence on overall society for sure. There are always other people taking care of my superid even if they are not directly involved with me.


Np 




> It's more noticeable with Si than with Fe, so I'll go with that. But. I just mean like, they ask me "what did you eat for lunch?" and no amount of details is enough until I've listed off (i.e. made up) every ingredient. Only then will they stop badgering me for details. That kind of detail focus is stressful for me. And when they talk it's like "I had a salad for lunch. It had tomatos, pickles, blah blah blah..." they can't just sum up with "I ate lunch" or even just lunch out entirely.
> 
> ETA: My ESE forum friend posted something similar here


Yeah hm, I don't talk about details like that to other people. The ESE example I do to myself in my head but I don't go around speaking like that because I'd find that 1) weird 2) unnecessary.




> For me to follow details like this, especially spoken IRL rather than written, is pretty stressful, yeah.


Not hard for me but again, I don't talk about it to others. 

Well, I used to list a lot of details in my public training log online as I didn't consider other people were going to read it but when I realized they were reading, I cut out a lot of it and put them in the private part of the log instead.


You seem to have skipped this topic _"I don't understand what you mean by them redirecting your focus to Fe and you are mentioning this for the second time - explain more please."_ You said this was also stressful..?




> I thought I was ILE-Ne last week? :tongue: In any case I do not think I repress Fe as much as ILE-Ti. But, I have noticed that I take Ti somewhat more seriously than xLEs usually do, and can even be somewhat rigid at times, while still not as much as Ti-doms. Could a Ti subtype explain that? I also have a more serious and "heavier" approach to things.


Yeah it would fit ILE-Ti along with your argumentativeness. Obviously in those serious and/or argumentative moments you would be repressing/disregarding/forgetting about Fe. That's not to say that Fe can't argue, it certainly can, for an Ethical agenda however and you do it for a Logical agenda instead. (Which can still have some Ethics related part to it but it would be dominated by the logical focus.)




> All Alpha NTs have strong Ti, yet they are still Alphas. So how does strong Ti fit with the Alpha quadra groupthink description?


It's a general quadra description, not all of it will apply equally as strongly to all types within the quadra. As I said superid isn't fully ego-syntonic  Anyway that's the problem with going by quadras, the quadra values are not that universal though the grouping by quadra does have a point as far as superid still consists of valued functions. 




> His conclusion was...highly consistent with the rest of our discussions.


See. 




> I find it hard to see Se/Ni valuing but I can check again...especially conscious Ni creative... and Ti DS really...doesn't work. I could maybe make sense of Fe creative and Ti HA, but I do not think my Si is dominant :shocked: and again I don't see Ni - but at least if I'm IEI the absent Ni could be explained by base function being so natural I don't see it - whereas Ni creative of EIE would be fully visible and I can't see it. I will look at the Beta description though, I'll make another post for that one.


Yeah I don't really think EIE for you. I'm just saying it's the only possibility after ILE/Alpha NT. Nothing else would fit to a reasonable enough degree, not even EIE tbh, just mentioning it for the sake of completeness.




> ETA next day: OK so I observed myself at work today and I think I'm not constantly aware of the Fe stuff I mentioned earlier. I am aware a lot of the time, and definitely when actually interacting with someone (in person, phone, email, anything). But if I'm doing something else (like working) with people (coworkers) _around_ but not actually interacting, I'm not usually focused on how I'm affecting their emotions, moods, etc. I'm not consciously aware of it as much as I thought I was. It kind of dips out of awareness sometimes. It's definitely there in the background most of the time, but my primary focus isn't on Fe information generally. So yeah. I don't think I'm Fe ego. But still quite aware of Fe


Yeah makes sense. I'm like this with Ni. It's there in the background somehow but not the primary focus, so not very conscious. 




> What do you think about this though? Does it seem Se valuing? (from here) Idk if I'm interpreting words like challenge or conflict (for instance) differently than an Se valuer would, in the first place.


If they are Se challenges, sure.




> I can actually relate to this too a lot. (But perhaps not in the same way.) If things are going too smoothly I shake them up. I want something to work _towards_ all the time as well, some kind of strife or imperfection is always in mind, even if one is not "obvious" to other people I will see one.  Otherwise I'm just sitting there idling. It's too...idle. Too mentally idle. I don't need to "do" stuff physically per se but there has to be something going, something thinking, something cooking (not literally ), something I'm working on, whatever it is there has to be SOMETHING or ... I don't know, there's just no point in living otherwise, is there? I mean if everything is already happy-happy and settled, then what is the point in living? It is like there is always a struggle or a sort of conflict in my mind, in my outlook, even if there is none in "reality" per se... I can't have peace and quiet and tranquility and all that crap , I have to have some kind of internal "fight" going, some kind of obstacle to overcome, a challenge.


EP (Pe as base function) and seems Ne > Se. Especially when you emphasize the mental aspects. Or the issue with imperfection.




counterintuitive said:


> I do tend to see general trends that explain things, or similarities between different things, etc. I don't look for them deliberately, but that tends to be what I see.


That sounds like Ne (with Ti supporting it possibly). The Beta description was talking about Ti rules. 

A lot of Ne valuing with Se devaluing in the rest of what you say in this post of yours. And Ti > Fe. It all so neatly fits together in the overall trends :wink:




> I think so, it just depends on what is meant by a competitive situation. I'm thinking of some debates/arguments or the card games I mentioned earlier. Those get competitive as I play for money.  And yeah, real-time analysis is necessary to play games like that. I'm not sure if my preference is for the competitive gameplay described here, or the more lighthearted gameplay of Alpha. For sure though I'm not averse to a competitive atmosphere. I do think a competitive atmosphere wears me down faster than a lighthearted atmosphere, though.


Ne: competition in the intellectual mental area
Se: competition in real life stuff




> Haha, well, yeah. As said, long, droning stories are annoying, especially if detailed, and I'm just like "get to the point!" So this fits. I'll tolerate it for the sake of conversation sometimes but that's about it. Lol. Please summarize! What I didn't bold doesn't fit though.


That's interesting tbh. I wonder how other ILEs are with this. Obviously you won't care for all of Si especially if you have to do it *yourself* but you do reject it really strongly in places. So this would be the part that does not beautifully fit with the other data about you but I'm not very clear on how exactly Si DS is supposed to work. I can only model it after the generic concept of the DS function but the Ne/Si dynamics I'm not fully clear on.

If someone else can chime in it would be great. @Word Dispenser any thoughts on this Si issue that counterintuitive has?


----------



## Word Dispenser

myst91 said:


> If someone else can chime in it would be great. @_Word Dispenser_ any thoughts on this Si issue that counterintuitive has?


Generally, I find Si-Fe to have a kind of unruffled, warm quality about them. I'm not sure if they would necessarily be _detailed_ about descriptions of food, for example-- At least, not necessarily. Since Si is about subjective impressions of experience, then they might describe the feeling that food invokes, rather than being particularly descriptive about it. 

Si-Fe is all about comfort and harmony.

I would say that Si-Te would definitely be far more descriptive and detailed with things, and not necessarily concerned with the comfort/attitudes of others.

Does that make sense?

It's difficult for me to describe Si-DS. For me, it's just my own interpretation, but I'm pretty terrible at making myself comfortable, let alone anyone else. I often don't really notice unless it's pointed out to me. An example of this is that I might be reading a book, and the light is quite dim or non-existent. Then, the friendly neighbourhood Si-Fe comes in and turns on the light, and I realize-- Hey. That's actually nice. Thanks. :kitteh:

Also, I love food, but my cooking is kind of... Hit or miss. And generally needs some guidance. Especially because I may leave the burner on too high and the smoke detector will go off and all sorts of fun stuff. :kitteh:

But, again-- Just my experience.


----------



## myst91

Jeremy8419 said:


> Counter,
> 
> This thread just got bumped. Figured I'd reply to original post. No idea what y'all are talking about now.
> 
> The Reinin are plagued by poorly written and difficult to comprehend descriptions. One of the online test sites starts with a Z, I believe. That one rules out various types as you go clicking choices (dynamically updates each click). Go there. Read through the various dichotomies besides the E/I, T/F, N/S, and j/p ones. Remember 3-5 of them that make the most sense to you and are easiest to decide. Then answer those 3-5 in order of ease to comprehend/answer. I believe after just 3, it narrows to a single TIM, which is probably the same as if you answered just the E/I, T/F, N/S, and j/p ones. Once you know that type, if your base 4 dichotomies are off on TIM compared to the Reinin TIM, you can introspect to determine the possibility of one or more of the base 4 dichotomies being wrong and why.


It's this site Sociotypograph — determine sociotype  It narrows down to the type after picking 4 dichotomies.

The problem is I do seem pretty strong on Strategic. 

Static, Decisive, ok.

And we are talking about counterintuitive's type for the umpteenth time when it's already pretty clear anyway :crazy:


----------



## Jeremy8419

myst91 said:


> It's this site Sociotypograph â€” determine sociotype  It narrows down to the type after picking 4 dichotomies.
> 
> The problem is I do seem pretty strong on Strategic.
> 
> Static, Decisive, ok.
> 
> And we are talking about counterintuitive's type for the umpteenth time when it's already pretty clear anyway :crazy:


Ah, yeah. That's it.

Oh, I didn't read anything on the page. Just saw the original post and the number of pages, so I disclaimered in case my post's timing made it seem like I was replying to something I wasn't.


----------



## Jeremy8419

myst91 said:


> It's this site Sociotypograph â€” determine sociotype  It narrows down to the type after picking 4 dichotomies.
> 
> The problem is I do seem pretty strong on Strategic.
> 
> Static, Decisive, ok.
> 
> And we are talking about counterintuitive's type for the umpteenth time when it's already pretty clear anyway :crazy:


Oh, also, just look at your 3. Static and two that basically ARE Zhukov, strategic...decisive...

For reference, I originally had Farsighted and Objective as 2 of my first choices.


----------



## counterintuitive

Word Dispenser said:


> Generally, I find Si-Fe to have a kind of unruffled, warm quality about them. I'm not sure if they would necessarily be _detailed_ about descriptions of food, for example-- At least, not necessarily. Since Si is about subjective impressions of experience, then they might describe the feeling that food invokes, rather than being particularly descriptive about it.
> 
> Si-Fe is all about comfort and harmony.
> 
> I would say that Si-Te would definitely be far more descriptive and detailed with things, and not necessarily concerned with the comfort/attitudes of others.
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 
> It's difficult for me to describe Si-DS. For me, it's just my own interpretation, but I'm pretty terrible at making myself comfortable, let alone anyone else. I often don't really notice unless it's pointed out to me. An example of this is that I might be reading a book, and the light is quite dim or non-existent. Then, the friendly neighbourhood Si-Fe comes in and turns on the light, and I realize-- Hey. That's actually nice. Thanks. :kitteh:
> 
> Also, I love food, but my cooking is kind of... Hit or miss. And generally needs some guidance. Especially because I may leave the burner on too high and the smoke detector will go off and all sorts of fun stuff. :kitteh:
> 
> But, again-- Just my experience.


Thanks! (Btw, don't feel obligated to respond to this. This is just for information on my typing )

Yeah, I get what you're saying about Si-Fe vs. Si-Te being different in that regard. It seems to me too that the "stream of factual data" kind of stuff is more in the Si-Te realm.

I can't create my own comfort either, but on the other hand, I usually won't notice that I'm uncomfortable, so I don't actively seek out someone who could create comfort for me.

If someone were to turn on the light in that situation, I think I would respond similarly to you ("Hey, thanks! I appreciate it" or something)... but I could just as easily respond defensively, haha, because in turning on the light, they've also indirectly shone a light >) on the fact that I did not turn on said light myself. i.e. spotlighting my inadequacy. :crazy: Lol.

Overall, though, I think I do relate well enough to what you're saying and it's somewhat similar to what I wrote earlier in the thread:



counterintuitive said:


> I can't cook so I only buy raw vegetables and cut them and eat them with salad dressing. I don't keep any kind of like junk food around the house because I'll just eat it all of it, almost unconsciously, lol, I think that's because I don't notice I'm hungry but my actual stomach does and it drives me to eat whatever food is there.
> 
> Even if I can kinda handle myself, caring for _another person_ with my own Si seems disastrous. I _could_ see myself doing that with Fe - like I said, people do need my help with Fe sometimes - but never with Si, haha....I literally can't think of a time I helped someone with something Si oriented. Lol
> 
> I have to admit that having an spouse/SO who could like help me match clothes and who could cook food would be awesome


Haha, the last line is another admission that I need help with Si :crazy: I think in order to welcome someone else's help with Si, I have to first stop being defensive and accept that I can't take care of it myself, which I only partially accept. Hence the admissions followed by Si rejection, followed by more admissions, and back and forth.


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> And we are talking about counterintuitive's type for the umpteenth time when it's already pretty clear anyway :crazy:


:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :tongue: I think I'm completely insane tbh. Lol :crazy:



myst91 said:


> Yes, and superid does not fully match that if you were to do superid yourself. Only partially for the HA and even less so for the DS function.


Well superid is not _fully_ ego-syntonic, it is less ego-syntonic than the ego tongue block and moreso than the unvalued IEs.

Regardless, I think my initial error was in equating ego-syntonic with valued, which seems incorrect.



> You seem to have skipped this topic _"I don't understand what you mean by them redirecting your focus to Fe and you are mentioning this for the second time - explain more please."_ You said this was also stressful..?


I did skip this as I didn't have examples and the Si examples were clearer. It's just with Fe-doms, there's this pressure to protect their feelings. I wouldn't say it's _that_ stressful, though. I don't have that much difficulty with it. I bite my tongue as needed , so I can get through long conversations with Fe doms without offending them. So that's what I meant, basically I need to focus more on Fe around them in that way.



> Yeah it would fit ILE-Ti along with your argumentativeness. Obviously in those serious and/or argumentative moments you would be repressing/disregarding/forgetting about Fe. That's not to say that Fe can't argue, it certainly can, for an Ethical agenda however and you do it for a Logical agenda instead. (Which can still have some Ethics related part to it but it would be dominated by the logical focus.)


Yeah, I do disregard Fe when arguing, for sure. But, I think overall I don't repress Fe that much. Somehow I think xLE-Ti represses Fe almost like a Ti-dom, and my Fe is a lot more visible and less repressed than that.

I am argumentative in general (although usually when accused of that, I respond "No, I'm not argumentative at all!" just for the sake of arguing xD) but I don't just argue all the time, and I try to pick my battles. I also consider myself kind of "separatist" lol and not "group-oriented".

Ti subtype would explain a lot though. In my 40Q thread, remember my irritation when people don't apply enough analysis, to the point where you thought I was Rational/Ti-leading. But I'm just as irritated when people apply too much analysis (especially too early) and don't 'float' things to see where they could lead (as said I don't need to cover everything with logic still). But in general I think I apply more analysis than is typical for xLE, going by their posts around the critical thinking and debate forums for instance. I also theorize on my own quite a lot, though I think that's normal for Ti egos in general (and some Ti HAs).

I generally process things internally more I think. I still put my foot in my mouth fairly often, lol, but I filter more of what I say before I say it, and I also more often filter/criticize my own thoughts and ideas before sharing them with others. You would not see me post quite as many half-baked/half-sensical things perhaps, but I'm not sure  Also, I think this might be SP-dom related but my tendency to jump without looking is greatly restrained/mitigated compared to other Eps/EPs.

It would even explain my original Ti-Ne mistype :crazy:

Can I ask what is your overall impression, in _alllllllll_ of our interactions, which has been quite a lot :crazy:, would you say Ne or Ti subtype?



> It's a general quadra description, not all of it will apply equally as strongly to all types within the quadra. As I said superid isn't fully ego-syntonic  Anyway that's the problem with going by quadras, the quadra values are not that universal though the grouping by quadra does have a point as far as superid still consists of valued functions.


Yeah, again, it looks like I mistakenly equated ego-syntonic with valued. The Alpha description basically read like an Alpha SF description to me haha.



> Yeah I don't really think EIE for you. I'm just saying it's the only possibility after ILE/Alpha NT. Nothing else would fit to a reasonable enough degree, not even EIE tbh, just mentioning it for the sake of completeness.


Gotcha. I agree, EIE doesn't really work.



> EP (Pe as base function) and seems Ne > Se. Especially when you emphasize the mental aspects. Or the issue with imperfection.


Yeah... I think my emphasis on mental activity over physically doing suggests Ne > Se valuation.



> That sounds like Ne (with Ti supporting it possibly). The Beta description was talking about Ti rules.
> 
> A lot of Ne valuing with Se devaluing in the rest of what you say in this post of yours. And Ti > Fe. It all so neatly fits together in the overall trends :wink:


Lol, alright, I'm actually agreeing with you now :tongue:



> Ne: competition in the intellectual mental area
> Se: competition in real life stuff


I definitely compete in the intellectual arena but like, how do you compete for real life stuff? Lol, I guess that says it all. 



> That's interesting tbh. I wonder how other ILEs are with this. Obviously you won't care for all of Si especially if you have to do it *yourself* but you do reject it really strongly in places. So this would be the part that does not beautifully fit with the other data about you but I'm not very clear on how exactly Si DS is supposed to work. I can only model it after the generic concept of the DS function but the Ne/Si dynamics I'm not fully clear on.


Yeah, I do reject Si pretty strongly, which doesn't fit with Si being a valued function. I did just respond to Word Dispenser's post though so hopefully that will clarify. I'm still not really sure of Si DS either way though. That's the part that never fit tbh. Of course I want someone else to take care of all this Si crap for me , but I don't want them to then tell me about it as that defeats the whole purpose of having someone else do it. It's like if someone cooks food for me and then guilt trips me about it, which I've seen happen in _so many_ other relationships, there's no point - I might as well continue my raw vegetable intake then. :crazy:

Sometimes someone hugs me and it feels unusual, in a good way. It has a very grounding effect. I see a hug as showing/expressing emotion _while also_ providing someone else physical comfort, so I see it as a rather Fe/Si gesture. Obviously any type can hug, lol, this is just how I see it for some reason. What's weird is that I've long understood the _emotionally_ comforting factor of a hug. I even offer hugs to friends who are in distress. But I didn't realize until recently that a hug is also supposed to be _physically_ comforting. Lol. I'm 25 and I just figured this out. :crazy: And it is totally physically comforting when someone hugs me, and it has the positive grounding effect - even though I wouldn't even notice that I'm in need of physical comfort. Heh, maybe that's another admission!


----------



## Jeremy8419

Counter, did you try my suggestion?


----------



## myst91

Jeremy8419 said:


> Oh, also, just look at your 3. Static and two that basically ARE Zhukov, strategic...decisive...
> 
> For reference, I originally had Farsighted and Objective as 2 of my first choices.


That's just Se lead.

Static and Decisive is Se ego and adding Strategic to it is what supposedly makes it Se base.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> I can't create my own comfort either, but on the other hand, I usually won't notice that I'm uncomfortable, so I don't actively seek out someone who could create comfort for me.


Unaware dual seeking function.




> If someone were to turn on the light in that situation, I think I would respond similarly to you ("Hey, thanks! I appreciate it" or something)... but I could just as easily respond defensively, haha, because in turning on the light, they've also indirectly shone a light >) on the fact that I did not turn on said light myself. i.e. spotlighting my inadequacy. :crazy: Lol.


DS is supposedly a sore spot in this way of feeling inferior in that area.




> Haha, the last line is another admission that I need help with Si :crazy: I think in order to welcome someone else's help with Si, I have to first stop being defensive and accept that I can't take care of it myself, which I only partially accept. Hence the admissions followed by Si rejection, followed by more admissions, and back and forth.


Interesting - and yeah that makes sense.




counterintuitive said:


> :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :tongue: I think I'm completely insane tbh. Lol :crazy:


Lol for sure you are.




> Well superid is not _fully_ ego-syntonic, it is less ego-syntonic than the ego tongue block and moreso than the unvalued IEs.
> 
> Regardless, I think my initial error was in equating ego-syntonic with valued, which seems incorrect.


Yes.




> I did skip this as I didn't have examples and the Si examples were clearer. It's just with Fe-doms, there's this pressure to protect their feelings. I wouldn't say it's _that_ stressful, though. I don't have that much difficulty with it. I bite my tongue as needed , so I can get through long conversations with Fe doms without offending them. So that's what I meant, basically I need to focus more on Fe around them in that way.


I see; I'm much less aware of this stuff than you with the Fe doms. I dont notice that pressure by default hmmmm unless they really get in my face about it. 




> Yeah, I do disregard Fe when arguing, for sure. But, I think overall I don't repress Fe that much. Somehow I think xLE-Ti represses Fe almost like a Ti-dom, and my Fe is a lot more visible and less repressed than that.


Somehow that was my impression of xLE-Ti too until I understood that their Fe is still a looot more active than Fe of LxI's as soon as the xLE-Ti does get into the Fe mode. (Until then they'll look serious, sure.) You can fit ILE-Ti alright.




> Can I ask what is your overall impression, in _alllllllll_ of our interactions, which has been quite a lot :crazy:, would you say Ne or Ti subtype?


Heh well, yes I'd lean towards Ti subtype for you.




> Lol, alright, I'm actually agreeing with you now :tongue:


Ha, let's see how long before you feel confined again. :laughing:




> I definitely compete in the intellectual arena but like, how do you compete for real life stuff? Lol, I guess that says it all.


Yeah Ne > Se.




> Yeah, I do reject Si pretty strongly, which doesn't fit with Si being a valued function. I did just respond to Word Dispenser's post though so hopefully that will clarify. I'm still not really sure of Si DS either way though. That's the part that never fit tbh. Of course I want someone else to take care of all this Si crap for me , but I don't want them to then tell me about it as that defeats the whole purpose of having someone else do it. It's like if someone cooks food for me and then guilt trips me about it, which I've seen happen in _so many_ other relationships, there's no point - I might as well continue my raw vegetable intake then. :crazy:


You reject it from Ego, of course. And yeah, the Si ego doesn't have to tell you about it. I don't think an actual Si ego would guilt trip you for having to do the Si stuff themselves.




> Sometimes someone hugs me and it feels unusual, in a good way. It has a very grounding effect. I see a hug as showing/expressing emotion _while also_ providing someone else physical comfort, so I see it as a rather Fe/Si gesture. Obviously any type can hug, lol, this is just how I see it for some reason. What's weird is that I've long understood the _emotionally_ comforting factor of a hug. I even offer hugs to friends who are in distress. But I didn't realize until recently that a hug is also supposed to be _physically_ comforting. Lol. I'm 25 and I just figured this out. :crazy: And it is totally physically comforting when someone hugs me, and it has the positive grounding effect - even though I wouldn't even notice that I'm in need of physical comfort.


Interesting. I don't really have the need to feel grounded by a hug. I don't think I care for the physical comfort providing part of it - that to me is rather boring. So hmm, yeah, you sound pretty Si valuing.




> Heh, maybe that's another admission!


:tongue:

...hmm so maybe its useful to you having figured this out, would be cool


----------



## myst91

Word Dispenser said:


> I would say that Si-Te would definitely be far more descriptive and detailed with things, and not necessarily concerned with the comfort/attitudes of others.


What does the Si of Si-Te/SLI focus on then if not on comfort?


----------



## Word Dispenser

myst91 said:


> What does the Si of Si-Te/SLI focus on then if not on comfort?


I think of how comfort relates to Fe over Si, to clarify. And Si in Delta focuses on comfort from a different vein. Not to bring that + or - thing into this too much, but it at least seems true that the difference between Si in Alpha seems to like to maximize comfort, and Si Delta seems to like to minimize discomfort, if that makes any sense at all.


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> Unaware dual seeking function.


Maybe, but how would I know? It's not conscious, so I have no idea if I'm actually seeking an Si dom dual or some other dual entirely.



> DS is supposedly a sore spot in this way of feeling inferior in that area.


Well, yeah, that's the _inferior_ity complex in the area of the inferior function. I do think that is the reason behind the defensiveness, and tbh I mostly react defensively and less often react with gratitude. :crazy:



> Lol for sure you are.


Well I can't even disagree there :crazy: :crazy:



> I see; I'm much less aware of this stuff than you with the Fe doms. I dont notice that pressure by default hmmmm unless they really get in my face about it.


Oh. Well, it's not always there with all Fe doms in all situations, it's just something I've noticed in general. But yes, I'm pretty aware of it.



> Somehow that was my impression of xLE-Ti too until I understood that their Fe is still a looot more active than Fe of LxI's as soon as the xLE-Ti does get into the Fe mode. (Until then they'll look serious, sure.) You can fit ILE-Ti alright.
> 
> Heh well, yes I'd lean towards Ti subtype for you.


Oh, yeah, in that case it can work. My Fe is definitely pretty active when in Fe mode.



> Ha, let's see how long before you feel confined again. :laughing:


I'm kinda already feeling it. Lol :crazy:



> You reject it from Ego, of course. And yeah, the Si ego doesn't have to tell you about it. I don't think an actual Si ego would guilt trip you for having to do the Si stuff themselves.


Maybe not... I find it really hard to believe the Si ego won't come to resent the Ne ego in these kinds of relationships. It just sounds like those relationships where the woman has been cooking and cleaning for 25 years while the man pursues his dreams and the woman is like, "I've taken care of you for 25 years!!!" She's resentful and she's had enough. Obviously the stereotype is with the woman taking care of the man, but of course, it can be the other way around just as well. I'd have to ask some Si egos around the forum, but I don't know how they _wouldn't_ feel resentful.



> Interesting. I don't really have the need to feel grounded by a hug. I don't think I care for the physical comfort providing part of it - that to me is rather boring. So hmm, yeah, you sound pretty Si valuing.


I don't consciously have the need either, but then like I said, someone hugs me and it feels unusual, in a good way so it must be a really unconscious need that I didn't even know I had :crazy: But otoh I wouldn't care if I went without it, because I wouldn't even notice! 



> :tongue:
> 
> ...hmm so maybe its useful to you having figured this out, would be cool


Well overall this has been useful. I know I'm insane, I'm sorry for dragging this on and on. You've been helping me with this for like, idk, 3 months (OMG lol) and I guess you hope I will eventually figure it out and stop posting about it :crazy: :laughing:


----------



## Jeremy8419

Si in delta is to reduce negative interactions of forces. It's like gears turning. You work to keep the gears running smoothly (SLI) or you keep the gears running smoothly to work (LSE). Well-oiled machine in society makes for better relationships with people (SLI) and a well-oiled machine can work to increase personal potentials (LSE). Just an ordering thing.


----------



## myst91

Ah, I thought I replied to this. 




counterintuitive said:


> Maybe not... I find it really hard to believe the Si ego won't come to resent the Ne ego in these kinds of relationships. It just sounds like those relationships where the woman has been cooking and cleaning for 25 years while the man pursues his dreams and the woman is like, "I've taken care of you for 25 years!!!" She's resentful and she's had enough. Obviously the stereotype is with the woman taking care of the man, but of course, it can be the other way around just as well. I'd have to ask some Si egos around the forum, but I don't know how they _wouldn't_ feel resentful.


I don't think Si/Ne duality is simply about the Si ego cooking and cleaning. But yeah ask the Si egos about it.




> I don't consciously have the need either, but then like I said, someone hugs me and it feels unusual, in a good way so it must be a really unconscious need that I didn't even know I had :crazy: But otoh I wouldn't care if I went without it, because I wouldn't even notice!


It just means you don't consciously miss that part of reality. But it's still a big part missing.




> Well overall this has been useful. I know I'm insane, I'm sorry for dragging this on and on. You've been helping me with this for like, idk, 3 months (OMG lol) and I guess you hope I will eventually figure it out and stop posting about it :crazy: :laughing:


Glad if it helped.  Haha, I'm not too worried in either case :laughing:


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> Si in delta is to reduce negative interactions of forces. It's like gears turning. You work to keep the gears running smoothly (SLI) or you keep the gears running smoothly to work (LSE). Well-oiled machine in society makes for better relationships with people (SLI) and a well-oiled machine can work to increase personal potentials (LSE). Just an ordering thing.



It is fabric softener. It breaks the fall of things and leaves a fresh scent.


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> It is fabric softener. It breaks the fall of things and leaves a fresh scent.


Here


* *






Jeremy8419 said:


> Don't really know what my views on you are, as I haven't developed an internal impression of your personality to fit into a system.
> 
> Have you given an overall life situation to each of the four Quadra?





Jeremy8419 said:


> Try equating the Quadra to life situations (your choosing), and see how it affects your thinking towards Socionics.
> 
> E.g.:
> Alpha - individuals voicing themselves to individuals
> Beta - formation and securing of family
> Gamma - families/groups in relations to other such
> Delta - families/groups being assisted by individuals
> Alternatively:
> Alpha - Friends and dating
> Beta - Family
> Gamma - Inter-family
> Delta - Grandparenthood
> 
> Just food for thought on alternative ways of looking at the Quadra. You can then, with your own comparative analysis of life situations, then place individuals as which of 4 types you see them as in their present life situation (Quadra) and which you think they will be like when they progress into the next. You can also take that life situation, and then sub-divide it into the four Quadra, etc.
> 
> It's off-topic to what you were asking, but it gives an alternate view of things lol.





Jeremy8419 said:


> Hmmm... That's more like the regular Quadra for immediate situations. How about on an expanded time level though?
> 
> Try taking a cycle of something, like: Meeting to being in a relationship, birth to death, adulthood to baby being born, etc., and divide it up into stages and label them Quadra (Quadra succession).
> 
> Sort of along the same lines of this, but applied to cycles and sub-cycles of life.
> Socionics - the16types.info - The Clock of the Socion: Energy Dynamics of Quadra and Benefit Rings





Jeremy8419 said:


> Lets look at the cycle of College:
> 
> ILE: Idea of going to college
> ESE: Emotional hype of idea
> SEI: Smoothing of things surrounding idea
> LII: Logistics of idea and finalizing
> 
> EIE: Promotion of college into form
> SLE: Acquisition of resources for college
> LSI: Overly structured plan for college
> IEI: Plans go out the window once starting
> 
> SEE: Interests between classmates form
> LIE: Pushing interests and gambling efforts
> ILI: Restraints of interests vs pursuits
> ESI: Passing morality required to succeed in college
> 
> LSE: Hard and diligent work day by day
> IEE: Sporadic search for possibilities by graduating
> EII: Education is to help others not the self
> SLI: Organic finishing of college and return to ILE
> 
> So, this is an example of the stages of the Socion through the life situation of "college", which those in the process of college will fall into one of the TIM's as far as college is concerned. But what of the life situation of "formal education?" Although one could be in the alpha, beta, or gamma stages of college, they would simultaneously be in the delta stage of the life situation of formal education, which they have spent 12+ years on thus far. What of the life situation of adulthood to gaining one's own family? Of their career? Of their passionate pursuits? Of their life? Of their lineage? Of their nation? Of their own 5 minute idea they humor?
> 
> The point is not to say "I am most certainly XYZ," but rather to take a step back and see that we are all each of the types, when considering the various life situations of multiple overarching layers, and when dealing with others, say "you know, the life situation I am focused on may be different than yours, but in a different context... I've been there, and I understand. I may not be able to give the specific information and advice you need, but I can tell you my similar story, and, hopefully, that piece of my heart makes a difference."
> 
> When people say what type they are, when they at least have their own viewpoints for the 16 types, what they are really saying is not that they are "always xyz," as we are all always all of the types. What they are rather saying, is that their worldview is the manifestation of their own internal self forever within that TIM's purpose in time throughout all the cycles of their lives. I happened to be born with quick intellect and high energy. And my moment in time happens to be the EII. I still have the letter my preschool teacher sent home with me saying after I finished my art project that I went and helped show others how to do theirs. And it repeats throughout my life. Over and over, I am here not to be here, but to help others be here. Is your moment that is "you" when everything else ends and the next idea begins? Are you an ILE? Only you can know that, but it's a good one too. After all... If a classmate hadn't spoken up and picked that art project from nothing, then I never would have found that moment in time, nor would anyone else have found theirs.





ILE said:


> Mmmm ok I see what your getting at. I'll do one for the lifecycle of a typical person:
> 
> Alpha: Infancy-Childhood
> 
> ILE: Curiosity in the outside world, mass absorption of experiences
> ESE: Playfulness and delight in game playing
> SEI: Development of harmonious and long lasting friendships
> LII: Receiving basic education and acquiring an understanding of how the world works
> 
> Beta: Teenage-Young Adulthood
> 
> EIE: Formation of one's inner social circle and cultural identity
> SLE: Resisting the control of parents/guardians and becoming self-sufficient
> LSI: Developing discipline and following an orderly lifestyle
> IEI: Letting loose in search of a romantic and meaningful life
> 
> Gamma: Adulthood
> 
> SEE: Creation and expansion of social contacts in order to open more doors
> LIE: Risky investment in a career or social organization
> ILI: Managing decisions made and coming back down to earth
> ESI: Developing a code of ethics to enable a more stable life
> 
> Delta: Middle age and beyond
> 
> LSE: Dutifully working to build a solid foundation for the rest of life
> IEE: Acting chaotically and impulsively to remedy boredom
> EII: Passing on belongings to family/charity and achieving peace through good-will
> SLI: Returning to one's roots and learning to take pleasure in the simple things once more





Jeremy8419 said:


> Hahaha. Read IEE between "mindlessly working hard" and "work is for other people" and thought, ohhhhh so that's a mid-life crisis LOL.
> 
> That's good. Now do a few more mentally to yourself. Maybe picking whichever stage you are in from your total lifecycle and subdividing just that stage into the 16 stages? Once you get a few of them mentally, try and look at each of your TIM's by those stages from the socionics TIM models and descriptions perspectives, and from that context try and see how you _really are_ just like those TIM's within their respective contexts. E.g., if you're in SEE in your total lifecycle, try and see how in the context of your total lifecycle, you really do match everything SEE. And then the rest of your respective TIM's for the cycles you pick and outline. Try and do the same for some of the people you're close to as well.





IEI said:


> This is an interesting viewpoint. In my life I have dealt with a lot of loss. I have been 'put" in the dying path of others over and over. Even witnessing life and death situations where I had to make quick choices. I was put in charge of taking care of my dying grandfather when I was a teen and it has followed me ever since. I have always felt I am here to *help people leave here not be here*. I guess to talk about my ideas of what awaits after this life which I have been doing since childhood. I have drawn 100s over the years, when I was more active in metaphysical groups, who actually listened and didn't automatically dismiss me as a lunachick.
> 
> I do it with a tinge of reluctance and more than once questioned, "why me?". The dying people I have spent last days with seemed comforted by what I said even if I didn't consciously think about what to tell them. It is different for each person. I don't mention god unless they are religious. I used to have an aversion to saying god but this probably got me over it. It is like the right words come and they work even if they are not part of my conscious belief systems.
> 
> Over the years it feels more like a burden and I know that is just my attitude because of how many people I was close to that died. It would probably be easier with random strangers. People suggest I volunteer for hospice but it is not what I want to do. I do not want to seek death but if it shows up I will have a talk with it. I am due for a long break though. No one wants to be seen as an angel of death. hahah I have never done anything to cause a death just to be clear. I know someone reading might go off imagining the unimaginable about me cause they are just wired that way.





Jeremy8419 said:


> Murderer! :O
> 
> What you describe would be the moment through which you perceive the world and your relation to it. All people go through those moments, but "your world" happens to be through such moments.
> 
> There's no copyright or fee on those exercises. Take time to do them yourself in your own way. Given that you can cut and splice life into a limitless number of life situation progressions, one or more of them will place you into a less grim TIM period. After you adjust your views to see how such a TIM is most certainly true in that context, it will give balance to you in some regards.


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> I don't think Si/Ne duality is simply about the Si ego cooking and cleaning. But yeah ask the Si egos about it.


Then what is it about?

I read the infantile/caregiver thing but I didn't relate to any of the romance styles, and moreover, the infantile/caregiver doesn't sound like a relationship I'd want to be in.



> It just means you don't consciously miss that part of reality. But it's still a big part missing.


Yeeeaaaah. Did you know? There are thousands of invisible unicorns around you right now. You don't consciously miss them because you're not aware of them. But it's still a big part missing.

Btw someone hugged me today and I flipped out and threatened to strangle her if she touched me again. I'd gladly go the rest of my life without being hugged. I just don't like being touched. Sure, "comfort", whatever, but I don't enjoy it really. I don't know what I was thinking. I don't seek comfort at all, I actually avoid it, because it lulls me to sleep which is antithetical to any kind of change or progress.

Comfort is everything that is wrong with the world. People SHOULD be uncomfortable. Si is everything that is wrong with the world. Fuck Si. I find Si repulsive. I don't seek it at all. It's the worst thing in the world.

I'm beginning to think this typology garbage isn't for me after all. I just re-read Golihov's Ne base and I don't relate to it now. I also don't relate to his Ti at all, it seems totally foreign that people think like that.

I also haven't had a new idea in about 3 months so I don't know what I was thinking when I said I have new ideas?? I basically never have ideas. Lol.

And Alphas? They sit around all day talking about quantum fucking physics? They value "fun", whatever that is. Ever heard of getting a job and contributing to society? Apparently not. They don't value work at all whereas I value work and basically work on something all the time.

I'm done trying to convince myself I'm Alpha or Ne or Ti. I'm not any of those things. I'm done with this shit. I'm giving myself a fucking ulcer trying to be ILE when it doesn't fit at all. Fuck this.

ETA: I realize this tone could come off as some kind of animosity towards you. That's not the case. It's just... I think I'm done with this once and for all now. I've been forcing myself to fit a type that just doesn't fit and it's making me literally ill. I can't live this lie anymore.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> Then what is it about?
> 
> I read the infantile/caregiver thing but I didn't relate to any of the romance styles, and moreover, the infantile/caregiver doesn't sound like a relationship I'd want to be in.


As I said, ask them.




> Yeeeaaaah. Did you know? There are thousands of invisible unicorns around you right now. You don't consciously miss them because you're not aware of them. But it's still a big part missing.


No, because you can't ever experience the invisible unicorns.




> Btw someone hugged me today and I flipped out and threatened to strangle her if she touched me again. I'd gladly go the rest of my life without being hugged. I just don't like being touched. Sure, "comfort", whatever, but I don't enjoy it really. I don't know what I was thinking. I don't seek comfort at all, I actually avoid it, because it lulls me to sleep which is antithetical to any kind of change or progress.
> 
> (...)
> 
> I'm done trying to convince myself I'm Alpha or Ne or Ti. I'm not any of those things. I'm done with this shit. I'm giving myself a fucking ulcer trying to be ILE when it doesn't fit at all. Fuck this.


I don't know, if EIE also doesn't fit then this stuff just isn't useful to you for some reason.

Also, for some reason your self perception keeps changing. That's interesting.

I guess that would be part of why you have the issues with typology.




> ETA: I realize this tone could come off as some kind of animosity towards you. That's not the case. It's just... I think I'm done with this once and for all now. I've been forcing myself to fit a type that just doesn't fit and it's making me literally ill. I can't live this lie anymore.


No worries.


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> As I said, ask them.


Already did.

I was asking you what Si/Ne duality is about, since you know the theory much better than I do.



> There are thousands of invisible unicorns around you right now. You don't consciously miss them because you're not aware of them. But it's still a big part missing.
> 
> 
> 
> No, because you can't ever experience the invisible unicorns.
Click to expand...

Actually I do experience them. I hear their hoofsteps. I drive much better on longer trips where they join me than on shorter trips where they don't. They've improved my sleep schedule by nudging me to go to bed. They keep my cats entertained when I'm at work. The only downside, really, is that sometimes I come home from work and the fridge is half-empty! I live alone, and my cats can't open the fridge, so I know it's the unicorns. But I'm not bothered; I feed them before I feed myself. And unlike with hugs, where I sometimes appreciate and sometimes hate them, I always react positively towards my unicorns.

I know this sounds like trolling but I'm actually serious. I had a spiritual awakening several months ago after which I started experiencing the unicorns.



> I don't know, if EIE also doesn't fit then this stuff just isn't useful to you for some reason.
> 
> Also, for some reason your self perception keeps changing. That's interesting.
> 
> I guess that would be part of why you have the issues with typology.


Yeah, I have a constantly shifting self-understanding/self-concept, it's not stable at all. :crazy:

I guess I don't find typology very useful because I basically get along equally well/badly with everyone. Communication is about as easy/difficult with everyone. Even with the Si care people, communication is pretty difficult; we seem to talk past each other quite a lot. If I'm being completely honest, after all of these years, I finally have to admit I don't see the effects of type IRL. So I don't find typology useful IRL to help build positive interactions/relations with others.

TBH though communication with you is pretty good compared to like 90% of people I know IRL and online. Maybe I _am_ EIE... :crazy:


I'm moving this in here since it has become about me again. :crazy: :tongue:



myst91 said:


> It can be Ne too, depending. But not everyone has to be interested in it.


I think philosophy and that "abstract" kind of stuff is really boring/pointless 



> Good question. What do you relate to in Jung then?


The extraverted type is all I consistently relate to. Even that's not 100% consistent from one reading to the next, but overall, 90% chance I'm extraverted in the Jungian sense.

In the past I've tried to make myself relate to the extraverted intuitive type, but if I'm honest, I don't relate to it at all. But then I also don't relate to any of the other 7.



> Do you have an understanding of the basic dichotomies at least? The S/N, T/F ones and then the I/E attitudes? Because that's a good starting point.


MBTI Step II Facets yes. These and I've also read large chunks of Gifts Differing (I have the book, I just read in a nonlinear fashion).

I relate strongly to both sides of T/F and S/N. With J/P (I'm aware of the problems of conceptualization of J/P in MBTI) I'm J>P though it's not a strong preference. I'm fairly clear on E>I. So in the MBTI dichotomies I'd be something like Exxj (strong E, weak J, indistinguishable T/F and S/N). IDK if the Socionics dichotomies are different? If not, I'd be a Rational xxE (Exxj). So probably not ILE. Or one _hell_ of a Ti subtype. :crazy:


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> Already did.
> 
> I was asking you what Si/Ne duality is about, since you know the theory much better than I do.


You already talked to Si egos on the forum about it?

If I want to sum it up.. Si grounds Ne from their head down to earth and calm them, comfort them.




> Actually I do experience them. I hear their hoofsteps. I drive much better on longer trips where they join me than on shorter trips where they don't. They've improved my sleep schedule by nudging me to go to bed. They keep my cats entertained when I'm at work. The only downside, really, is that sometimes I come home from work and the fridge is half-empty! I live alone, and my cats can't open the fridge, so I know it's the unicorns. But I'm not bothered; I feed them before I feed myself. And unlike with hugs, where I sometimes appreciate and sometimes hate them, I always react positively towards my unicorns.
> 
> I know this sounds like trolling but I'm actually serious. I had a spiritual awakening several months ago after which I started experiencing the unicorns.


Er, I'm not sure how much of this is to be taken literally.




> Yeah, I have a constantly shifting self-understanding/self-concept, it's not stable at all. :crazy:
> 
> I guess I don't find typology very useful because I basically get along equally well/badly with everyone. Communication is about as easy/difficult with everyone. Even with the Si care people, communication is pretty difficult; we seem to talk past each other quite a lot. If I'm being completely honest, after all of these years, I finally have to admit I don't see the effects of type IRL. So I don't find typology useful IRL to help build positive interactions/relations with others.
> 
> TBH though communication with you is pretty good compared to like 90% of people I know IRL and online. Maybe I _am_ EIE... :crazy:


Haha maybe. You do get dramatic enough for it though that's a stereotype.




> The extraverted type is all I consistently relate to. Even that's not 100% consistent from one reading to the next, but overall, 90% chance I'm extraverted in the Jungian sense.
> 
> In the past I've tried to make myself relate to the extraverted intuitive type, but if I'm honest, I don't relate to it at all. But then I also don't relate to any of the other 7.
> 
> MBTI Step II Facets yes. These and I've also read large chunks of Gifts Differing (I have the book, I just read in a nonlinear fashion).
> 
> I relate strongly to both sides of T/F and S/N. With J/P (I'm aware of the problems of conceptualization of J/P in MBTI) I'm J>P though it's not a strong preference. I'm fairly clear on E>I. So in the MBTI dichotomies I'd be something like Exxj (strong E, weak J, indistinguishable T/F and S/N). IDK if the Socionics dichotomies are different? If not, I'd be a Rational xxE (Exxj). So probably not ILE. Or one _hell_ of a Ti subtype. :crazy:


J? Interesting. Well it's good that the E is so clear.


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> You already talked to Si egos on the forum about it?


Yes.... I first suggested I was going to ask Si egos about it on 2/22, which was like 2 weeks ago. I did shortly thereafter.



counterintuitive said:


> I'd have to ask some Si egos around the forum, but I don't know how they _wouldn't_ feel resentful.





> If I want to sum it up.. Si grounds Ne from their head down to earth and calm them, comfort them.


OK, I guess that makes sense. Thanks.

I could more easily see myself bringing _someone else_ down to earth, and comforting them too but in the emotional sense. I'm very good at reassuring people, calming people, when they are stressed, like if they have a lot of worries or something. People worry about nothing.



> Er, I'm not sure how much of this is to be taken literally.


I know in my bones that my unicorns exist and behave as I stated. If you choose to remain closed to the unicorns, it's your loss.



> Haha maybe. You do get dramatic enough for it though that's a stereotype.


Everyone knows stereotypes are reliable typing mechanisms :crazy:

But seriously, I want to be EIE because then we can be duals instead of me supervising you or some other "bad" relation. I wouldn't want to knowingly expose you to supervision.

Under the stereotypes though I'd be a pretty clear introvert. I spend almost all my time alone (outside of work), I don't like talking to people, I avoid them except to argue with them or yell at them, etc. I'm basically an IxTx stereotype, if we're going by those. Lol.



> J? Interesting. Well it's good that the E is so clear.


The clarity of the E makes the moderate J confusing, haha. It could actually indicate EIE. But then I suppose that leaves other questions unanswered.

ETA: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> Yes.... I first suggested I was going to ask Si egos about it on 2/22, which was like 2 weeks ago. I did shortly thereafter.


And no luck?




> OK, I guess that makes sense. Thanks.
> 
> I could more easily see myself bringing _someone else_ down to earth, and comforting them too but in the emotional sense. I'm very good at reassuring people, calming people, when they are stressed, like if they have a lot of worries or something. People worry about nothing.





> Under the stereotypes though I'd be a pretty clear introvert. I spend almost all my time alone (outside of work), I don't like talking to people, I avoid them except to argue with them or yell at them, etc. I'm basically an IxTx stereotype, if we're going by those. Lol.


Hmm how do these two work together? Just curious..




> But seriously, I want to be EIE because then we can be duals instead of me supervising you or some other "bad" relation. I wouldn't want to knowingly expose you to supervision.







> ETA: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:


roud:


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> And no luck?


What does luck mean in this context? :crazy:



> Hmm how do these two work together? Just curious..


I do the former pretty rarely and the latter is my default mode.

Most people I know worry about stupid shit like the sky falling in around every corner, so it's not very difficult to reassure them. I just explain why the sky isn't going to fall in. Which half the time gets parsed as "arguing" rather than reassurance, but that's not my problem. From my POV it's emotional support.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> What does luck mean in this context? :crazy:


Lol, um, it would mean their descriptions of Si/Ne duality made some sense. ...?




> I do the former pretty rarely and the latter is my default mode.
> 
> Most people I know worry about stupid shit like the sky falling in around every corner, so it's not very difficult to reassure them. I just explain why the sky isn't going to fall in. Which half the time gets parsed as "arguing" rather than reassurance, but that's not my problem. From my POV it's emotional support.


Oh it makes sense now. I thought you meant direct emotional support. I do the logical version of reassuring too. I can get pretty blunt with that but it actually works on some people.


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> Lol, um, it would mean their descriptions of Si/Ne duality made some sense. ...?


Oh. I don't know if it makes sense per se, but either way, it's not something I see as desirable for myself.



> Oh it makes sense now. I thought you meant direct emotional support. I do the logical version of reassuring too. I can get pretty blunt with that but it actually works on some people.


It's direct emotional support though. I consider what a lot of people do (patting you on the back, trying to console you, etc) as unproductive because it doesn't actually solve anything. So that's indirect. My approach is direct. :crazy:


ETA



counterintuitive said:


> ETA: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:


:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:​


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> It's direct emotional support though. I consider what a lot of people do (patting you on the back, trying to console you, etc) as unproductive because it doesn't actually solve anything. So that's indirect. My approach is direct. :crazy:


It's a direct approach and it's supportive but not what emotional support is usually defined as because that's about actual emotional communication. Some people do seem to need it more than others.




> :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
> :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
> :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
> :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:​


What's with you loving that emoticon :laughing:


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> It's a direct approach and it's supportive but not what emotional support is usually defined as because that's about actual emotional communication. Some people do seem to need it more than others.


Oh. So I guess direct emotional communication = direct emotional support. My goal is still to provide emotional support though, I just also want to constructively help the person as well.



> What's with you loving that emoticon :laughing:


It represents my type journey :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

Have you noticed that I overuse it? lol :tongue: :crazy:


Sorry I saw this from the other thread:



myst91 said:


> This is rather MBTIish as said above. Socionics Ne DS isn't the same.
> 
> And I'll bring up a concrete example too. I've talked to an SLI recently who told me how much he appreciates the Ne of his IEE dual, taking him to try and experience new things.


OK so this is yet another reason I'm not IxE, lol, I don't try and experience new things on my own, I need someone else to make me do it. Well, not all the time, but often. Otherwise I just keep doing the same things (attending local events, networking groups, meetup groups, etc. and I have some hobbies that I do at home including internet :crazy: lol). But I don't usually try new things on my own. I can't even think of other things I'd want to do.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> It represents my type journey :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
> 
> Have you noticed that I overuse it? lol :tongue: :crazy:


Yes, I finally noticed. :ninja:




> OK so this is yet another reason I'm not IxE, lol, I don't try and experience new things on my own, I need someone else to make me do it. Well, not all the time, but often. Otherwise I just keep doing the same things (attending local events, networking groups, meetup groups, etc. and I have some hobbies that I do at home including internet :crazy: lol). But I don't usually try new things on my own. I can't even think of other things I'd want to do.


What sort of new things did others have you try?


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> Yes, I finally noticed. :ninja:


Lol, I thought you'd notice a while ago :crazy:



> What sort of new things did others have you try?


Well usually they aren't successful in getting me to try something, because my reaction to other people telling me what to do is to punch them. Just kidding, but I'll say stuff like, "Hey, I have a great idea for something new you could try! Why don't you shave your head?" I've even said "why don't you kill yourself?" which usually shuts down the annoying conversation pretty fast. I don't want people telling me to "try new things!!!!!" lol.

Them: "Why don't you watch X movie this weekend?"
Me: "Why don't you kill yourself this weekend?"
*conversation ends* :crazy:


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> Lol, I thought you'd notice a while ago :crazy:


I kinda did, just wasn't yet sure of the pattern, it was so ambiguous and elusive :wink:




> Well usually they aren't successful in getting me to try something, because my reaction to other people telling me what to do is to punch them. Just kidding, but I'll say stuff like, "Hey, I have a great idea for something new you could try! Why don't you shave your head?" I've even said "why don't you kill yourself?" which usually shuts down the annoying conversation pretty fast. I don't want people telling me to "try new things!!!!!" lol.
> 
> Them: "Why don't you watch X movie this weekend?"
> Me: "Why don't you kill yourself this weekend?"
> *conversation ends* :crazy:


Hmm a suggestion to try something new isn't the same as them commanding you to do something. Anyway, you got some effective retorts there for sure :laughing:


----------



## myst91

@counterintuitive

I forgot to comment on this line: _"If people are more casual/jokey and not strictly professional with each other, they are probably friends"_

No this is actually too simplistic. There are situations where I can see that they aren't really friends.

Don't know if you just didn't think this through or if it's how Fi PoLR sees these things. But I've talked to a Fi PoLR girl (SLE) before who told me she was not sure if she was actually friends with someone after having joked and having had some fun times with the person. I saw it as an incredibly clueless perspective 

I mean, both you and the girl do mention uncertainty (you use the wording "probably"), where I don't really have that much uncertainty. I might, but in more complex situations only where my normative Fi does fail to provide an answer. (I can still reason for an answer eventually but it's more through Ti and/or I have to ask people for confirmation.)


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> Well, the perception of the gap would be some rudimentary awareness of personal differences, yes, though it can be also logically reasoned without having to directly feel it.


I think I do directly feel it, but not sure. I'm especially thinking of one person in particular here who I've known basically my whole life with whom there is still a gap.



> Ha, more like your brain missing an aspect of reality, yeah it does sound scary thinking about how I may miss a lot of things myself on PoLR (and on DS) that others perceive just fine :tongue:
> 
> When I say aspect of reality, I don't mean it has to be out there tangibly, but it's something people on the whole process consistently enough. ...Except of course the people who have it as an one-dimensional function.


Yeah I understand. Somehow everyone gets through life despite missing some aspects of reality, probably by compensating for the 1D functions. If I am Fi PoLR, I've probably compensated for it quite well through Ti and Fe to the point where I'm not sure I'm Fi PoLR :crazy:



> Yes, to be more precise, because it focuses on physical sensations and nothing beyond that, not a trace of feeling/value judgment there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New example then: Bob is a veteran who has PTSD that has specific triggers. It would be important for those who regularly interact with Bob to respect his triggers and avoid them or at least warn him about them. If Bob were my friend, acquaintence, coworker, etc. I would certainly be mindful of this.
> 
> Real example: I have an interest in aviation. My friend has a flying phobia. I don't discuss my aviation interests with this friend because he has told me that it triggers his phobia. (His phobia is so severe that hearing about planes or seeing a plane go by overhead will trigger it :O)
> 
> More real examples: There are certain jokes I will not make. Violent crime jokes for example. No murder jokes, no child molestation jokes, no rape jokes. I also avoid dead baby jokes because I don't know if someone around has actually lost a child. I knew someone who thought suicide jokes were all the lulz until he found out the hard way one day that his brother was not joking. I don't make suicide jokes either.
> 
> These aren't anomalies; I regularly respect "differences and nuances in individual experiences" and I do it gladly.
> 
> 
> 
> OK. The question is, do you process all this through Ti/Fe or directly through Fi.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I was hoping you could tell me that! :tongue: Lol :crazy:

In Bob's case, he's already living with PTSD and I wouldn't want to trigger it further. I don't want to hurt him. Simple as that.

Aviation case, same thing. I don't want to hurt or upset my friend by triggering his phobia when there are so many other things we could talk about. Avoiding the subject is a very small sacrifice for me and a significant benefit to him.

As for the jokes, it's not my place to joke about others' misfortunes. If people make jokes about their own misfortunes or bad situations, that's fine. But I do not make jokes about other people's bad situations. So in that sense I have respect for personal experiences.



> It's some consistent observation, if I really had to guess about the reason I would say it's that Ne isn't concerned with material realities like Se so it can afford to be a bit more er, naive.


OK thanks for explanation.



> If you mean the part about how you know what sort of jokes not to make, well, I addressed that now. Tbh the rest was pretty standard Fi PoLR, interestingly enough.
> 
> Don't know if that's because you discovered these things through exploring yourself via the theory.


I haven't looked into the theory enough to know that these things are standard Fi PoLR. So I'm genuinely surprised that my responses here are consistent with Fi PoLR. Lol.




myst91 said:


> @counterintuitive
> 
> I forgot to comment on this line: _"If people are more casual/jokey and not strictly professional with each other, they are probably friends"_
> 
> No this is actually too simplistic. There are situations where I can see that they aren't really friends.
> 
> Don't know if you just didn't think this through or if it's how Fi PoLR sees these things. But I've talked to a Fi PoLR girl (SLE) before who told me she was not sure if she was actually friends with someone after having joked and having had some fun times with the person. I saw it as an incredibly clueless perspective
> 
> I mean, both you and the girl do mention uncertainty (you use the wording "probably"), where I don't really have that much uncertainty. I might, but in more complex situations only where my normative Fi does fail to provide an answer. (I can still reason for an answer eventually but it's more through Ti and/or I have to ask people for confirmation.)


In that sentence I was referring to two other people, not me and another person. I'd revise that as: _If two other people are more casual/jokey and not strictly professional with each another, they are probably friends (or at least work-friends or something) and not strictly coworkers or some other formal relationship._ Basically I'm able to use the casual/jokey behavior to assess if it's a more formal or informal relationship. It can be both in some cases.

I don't really have friends per se. I basically have acquaintences who I see more often (who I *call* friends) and less often (who I call acquaintences), but that categorization is just based on how long I've known them and how often we see each other. I'm not sure I feel differently towards these two categories tbh. I used to have a couple friends I felt differently about somehow, in a good way, though I can't articulate it. We have drifted out of each others' lives.

_"she was not sure if she was actually friends with someone after having joked and having had some fun times with the person."_ - Well, just because you had fun times with someone doesn't mean you have to be friends. If that were true, I'd have like 100 friends, and I don't.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> I think I do directly feel it, but not sure. I'm especially thinking of one person in particular here who I've known basically my whole life with whom there is still a gap.


OK. I do think the Ne contributes to this for you.




> Yeah I understand. Somehow everyone gets through life despite missing some aspects of reality, probably by compensating for the 1D functions. If I am Fi PoLR, I've probably compensated for it quite well through Ti and Fe to the point where I'm not sure I'm Fi PoLR :crazy:


I don't see my Ne PoLR either by default. Though once I realized I had that, it really really made sense. :shocked:




> I don't know, I was hoping you could tell me that! :tongue: Lol :crazy:


Lol well...




> In Bob's case, he's already living with PTSD and I wouldn't want to trigger it further. I don't want to hurt him. Simple as that.
> 
> Aviation case, same thing. I don't want to hurt or upset my friend by triggering his phobia when there are so many other things we could talk about. Avoiding the subject is a very small sacrifice for me and a significant benefit to him.
> 
> As for the jokes, it's not my place to joke about others' misfortunes. If people make jokes about their own misfortunes or bad situations, that's fine. But I do not make jokes about other people's bad situations. So in that sense I have respect for personal experiences.


All I can say is I would use pretty similar reasoning.




> I haven't looked into the theory enough to know that these things are standard Fi PoLR. So I'm genuinely surprised that my responses here are consistent with Fi PoLR. Lol.


roud:




> In that sentence I was referring to two other people, not me and another person. I'd revise that as: _If two other people are more casual/jokey and not strictly professional with each another, they are probably friends (or at least work-friends or something) and not strictly coworkers or some other formal relationship._ Basically I'm able to use the casual/jokey behavior to assess if it's a more formal or informal relationship. It can be both in some cases.


OK. This is still Ti language to me. Hm, I can watch quite some refined factors too but I don't usually care to learn about who has what relationship.




> I don't really have friends per se. I basically have acquaintences who I see more often (who I *call* friends) and less often (who I call acquaintences), but that categorization is just based on how long I've known them and how often we see each other. I'm not sure I feel differently towards these two categories tbh. I used to have a couple friends I felt differently about somehow, in a good way, though I can't articulate it. We have drifted out of each others' lives.


Yeah ok, Ti talk again :tongue:




> _"she was not sure if she was actually friends with someone after having joked and having had some fun times with the person."_ - Well, just because you had fun times with someone doesn't mean you have to be friends. If that were true, I'd have like 100 friends, and I don't.


So how did you decide those friends you had before were friends?


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> OK. I do think the Ne contributes to this for you.


Ne contributes in directly perceiving the gap?



> I don't see my Ne PoLR either by default. Though once I realized I had that, it really really made sense. :shocked:


Oh. Well, Fi PoLR would explain a lot in terms of my problems with developing close relationships. :crazy: But it might be NTR. I have some, er, interpersonal behavioral tendencies that could be causing these difficulties :tongue: (I'm also SX-last, I'm pretty sure, so that doesn't help lol)



> All I can say is I would use pretty similar reasoning.


In that you have normative Fi or in that you're Ti ego?



> OK. This is still Ti language to me. Hm, I can watch quite some refined factors too but I don't usually care to learn about who has what relationship.


I don't generally care either tbh, but if I need to find out for some reason, this is how I would do it.



> Yeah ok, Ti talk again :tongue:


Granted 



> So how did you decide those friends you had before were friends?


The friends I was referring to in this quote: _"I used to have a couple friends I felt differently about somehow, in a good way, though I can't articulate it. We have drifted out of each others' lives."_ With these particular friends it was somehow emotionally different, lol, like I actually felt differently.

Most of the time it's just based on behavioral stuff like how long I've known the person, how frequently we interact, type of activities we do together, etc. I would not make that call based on having had fun times and joking alone. If I have had like 1-2 fun times with a person but only known them for a week then I would not call them a friend. The threshold for "friend" category is higher.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> Ne contributes in directly perceiving the gap?


It's about Ne information, yeah, that's what it sounded like. As you talked about mental disconnection.




> Oh. Well, Fi PoLR would explain a lot in terms of my problems with developing close relationships. :crazy: But it might be NTR. I have some, er, interpersonal behavioral tendencies that could be causing these difficulties :tongue: (I'm also SX-last, I'm pretty sure, so that doesn't help lol)


Could be Fi PoLR *and* some NTR stuff.




> In that you have normative Fi or in that you're Ti ego?


The latter




> The friends I was referring to in this quote: _"I used to have a couple friends I felt differently about somehow, in a good way, though I can't articulate it. We have drifted out of each others' lives."_ With these particular friends it was somehow emotionally different, lol, like I actually felt differently.
> 
> Most of the time it's just based on behavioral stuff like how long I've known the person, how frequently we interact, type of activities we do together, etc. I would not make that call based on having had fun times and joking alone. If I have had like 1-2 fun times with a person but only known them for a week then I would not call them a friend. The threshold for "friend" category is higher.


What were their types? =)


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> It's about Ne information, yeah, that's what it sounded like. As you talked about mental disconnection.


Alright I guess that could be Ne information.



> Could be Fi PoLR *and* some NTR stuff.


I suppose 



> The latter


OK 



> The friends I was referring to in this quote: "I used to have a couple friends I felt differently about somehow, in a good way, though I can't articulate it. We have drifted out of each others' lives." With these particular friends it was somehow emotionally different, lol, like I actually felt differently.
> 
> 
> 
> What were their types? =)
Click to expand...

Lol this occurred to me as I was writing that , because one of those friends was, I'm like 95%+ sure, ESE. Probably ESE-Si. :crazy: :tongue:

The other friend I typed MBTI ENFP at that time. I still think IEE could be correct, but I'm not sure.

It was only a couple friends though. I kinda want more friendships like this. *cringe* :crazy: /another admission I will soon regret


----------



## myst91

@counterintuitive

I checked something in your Fi block in 40q



> If someone is like hating on me or something I'm just going to let it slide. Otherwise, I’d try to identify and address their underlying concern that was causing the negative attitude. Rarely have I had someone flip out at me for no reason at all; there's usually something I did/said, a behavior I need to correct, or a larger situation that needs to be resolved.


Examples of such?


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> Examples of such?


Examples of this? _"I’d try to identify and address their underlying concern that was causing the negative attitude. Rarely have I had someone flip out at me for no reason at all; there's usually something I did/said, a behavior I need to correct, or a larger situation that needs to be resolved."_

People don't react emotionally for no reason at all. If someone's having a negative emotional reaction towards me*, it's usually because of something that needs to be fixed. If it's a technical problem (usually is), I'll try to help with that. (I was thinking of a work situation when I wrote that, IIRC.) Say they are on a tight deadline and some system isn't working, of course they are going to be stressed and upset.

If I personally did/said something upsetting, I want to fix that (make amends, apologize, basically get on the same page as the person) and put that behind us so we can fix the work-related problem. But this is less common.


*I have since learned that expressing a negative attitude is not the same as a negative emotional reaction. :crazy: It's telling someone "I hate you!!" or something like that. If someone told me they hated me, I probably wouldn't grasp the extent of their hate to be honest. I'd just forget about it unless they intended harm on me or something.


----------



## myst91

@counterintuitive

OK still seems Fi PoLR =P


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> @counterintuitive
> 
> OK still seems Fi PoLR =P


Thanks roud:. I have mostly succumbed again but :crazy:...

The discussion in the inferior Ti vs. inferior Si thread reminded me that I don't relate to Socionics Si suggestive/DS. I do relate to Quenk's inferior Si article, which as you said in that thread, does not necessarily indicate inferior Si but just weak Si.

Given that I don't relate to Socionics Si DS, it looks like Si PoLR would make more sense then, or at least that I have no basis to think Si DS over Si PoLR. But then I don't relate to inferior Ti, so EIE (Si PoLR) wouldn't fit from that angle. :crazy:

I'm also far more sensitive to Si-related criticisms than Fi-related criticisms. I don't even recall being criticized about Fi stuff, actually. :crazy: TBH I kinda just ignore Fi, I think. (Not saying Fi ignoring, lol, just saying that I ignore Fi in the usual meaning of "ignore".) I don't have a bad reaction to Fi. With Si, I'll either have a bad (defensive) reaction or a good (thank you) reaction. Lol.


ETA, my point is, can basically disregarding Fi be consistent with Fi PoLR? I'm a lot more annoyed by Si (sometimes) than Fi.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> Thanks roud:. I have mostly succumbed again but :crazy:...


:laughing:




> The discussion in the inferior Ti vs. inferior Si thread reminded me that I don't relate to Socionics Si suggestive/DS. I do relate to Quenk's inferior Si article, which as you said in that thread, does not necessarily indicate inferior Si but just weak Si.
> 
> Given that I don't relate to Socionics Si DS, it looks like Si PoLR would make more sense then, or at least that I have no basis to think Si DS over Si PoLR. But then I don't relate to inferior Ti, so EIE (Si PoLR) wouldn't fit from that angle. :crazy:
> 
> I'm also far more sensitive to Si-related criticisms than Fi-related criticisms. I don't even recall being criticized about Fi stuff, actually. :crazy: TBH I kinda just ignore Fi, I think. (Not saying Fi ignoring, lol, just saying that I ignore Fi in the usual meaning of "ignore".) I don't have a bad reaction to Fi. With Si, I'll either have a bad (defensive) reaction or a good (thank you) reaction. Lol.
> 
> 
> ETA, my point is, can basically disregarding Fi be consistent with Fi PoLR? I'm a lot more annoyed by Si (sometimes) than Fi.


I'm the same way with Ne vs Fe. I usually don't pay much attention to the former, I don't accept criticism on that area much. What would be an issue is if I tried to Ne and then shoot myself in the feet that way. With Fe, same thing but it can be a sore spot even without that.

I wouldn't use the word "annoying" in the case of Fe though. You said before that you don't want to be helped out sometimes with Si. Hmm, I think I would also not want to be told explicitly that I'm being helped intentionally in this area (with Fe).


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> I'm the same way with Ne vs Fe. I usually don't pay much attention to the former, I don't accept criticism on that area much. What would be an issue is if I tried to Ne and then shoot myself in the feet that way. With Fe, same thing but it can be a sore spot even without that.
> 
> I wouldn't use the word "annoying" in the case of Fe though. You said before that you don't want to be helped out sometimes with Si. Hmm, I think I would also not want to be told explicitly that I'm being helped intentionally in this area (with Fe).


Hm that's interesting. I'm pretty sure I don't try to Fi at all :laughing: But yeah, DS as sore spot makes sense with the _inferior_ity complex inkface:

Yeah I don't want help with Si, even if I'm not told explicitly, I don't want people pointing out like bodily related things to me, telling me I look sick, have chapped lips, etc. I get really annoyed at that. I definitely wouldn't want to be told explicitly lol, I'd probably fly off the handle. ("I can take care of myself! I am an adult!!!" :crazy: :angry

I'm still not _really_ sure I relate to Si DS :crazy: :crazy: There might be a few things, like *occasionally* somaticizing symptoms (suggesting physical sensations to myself), but they're occasional and not definitive. Plus somaticizing symptoms is very common, it's widely known in the medical field, so probably NTR really.


ETA: TBH I don't think about comfort at all, and I have no desire for a comfortable life, even if someone else were to provide one for me and I didn't have to do it myself. To my conscious mind, I prefer unease and striving for things as opposed to a settled, sedated, comfortable life. I don't think relaxation and rest are important. I would be annoyed if someone expected me to relax a lot and rest "adequately".


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> ETA: TBH I don't think about comfort at all, and I have no desire for a comfortable life, even if someone else were to provide one for me and I didn't have to do it myself. To my conscious mind, I prefer unease and striving for things as opposed to a settled, sedated, comfortable life. I don't think relaxation and rest are important. I would be annoyed if someone expected me to relax a lot and rest "adequately".


You don't want conscious Si in ego is all this is saying


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> You don't want conscious Si in ego is all this is saying


Well it's not just that. I don't want other people to take care of Si stuff for me either. I'm an adult, I can take care of myself. I can cover all of my own needs. I don't want someone else to take care of Si stuff for me. So then Si is not in superid either.

Not that I imagine further discussion is going to lead anywhere different at this point. :crazy:


----------



## Jeremy8419

This isn't really socionics related, but are your emotions usually so diverse? They seem all over the place in your posts you typically make.


----------



## counterintuitive

Jeremy8419 said:


> This isn't really socionics related, but are your emotions usually so diverse? They seem all over the place in your posts you typically make.


What :crazy: could :tongue: you  possibly inkface: be :angry: referring :laughing: to? :crazy: :crazy: :shocked:


----------



## counterintuitive

I'm quoting you in here because apparently my (our?) technical discussion (this is technical? Lol) is not welcome in the hangout thread... :carrot:



myst91 said:


> Umm... so all your other ideas are original


Let me clarify: I have ideas that use existing ideas about twice a year. I have truly original ideas never.



> Or, you used up one of those two ideas per year in that thread you opened about ITR.


Unfortunately yes.



> To_august already explained actually (about how the blob ideas do exist in a sense... in the mind and in a rather indirect way, "out there" too).


Oh ok gotcha.



> Yeah, gotcha.


I wonder what type I was before and what type I will be when I no longer have the liquid planets or blobs or whatever. They are already going away with treatment like I said.



> Yeah um, I'm quite like this with Ti vs Se too.


Well, you were able to describe Ti in terms of a structure with axioms, hierarchies, etc - which is how I'd describe Ti as well - but I cannot say anything analogous about Ne. I have no conscious experience of Ne. So it seems a little different than your case with Ti. You seem much more aware of Ti than I am of Ne.

In general, is it common for creative subtypes to have a relatively unconscious base function? Are base subtypes barely conscious of their creative function then?

ETA Btw also if you have the example of the SLI needing Ne big pictures(?) that you were talking about a while ago? That would be helpful too. But if you don't that's fine. It was a while ago.



> Yep.
> 
> Thing is, I do like socializing/just having fun without technical talk too.


See that is quite different from me.  Where do you have fun without technical talk IRL, if you do?



> Ehh creative Ti likes to play in a way I don't really see the point of  Though a lot of time it's serious enough Ti from Ti creatives so I'm fine with it overall.


I think I do view Ti as kind of more 'fun' sometimes, ITR equations being an example of that. But yeah, I'm pretty serious with Ti overall. I see it almost like a second base function. It's an integral part of my life, in coming to conclusions and forming viewpoints, etc.


----------



## To_august

counterintuitive said:


> Fair enough, that's an idea. Though it's not what I would call an original idea since it's just an extension on existing ideas. I have ideas like that about twice a year, so it's a rare occurrence. Also, I wouldn't discuss an idea like that IRL because I CBA to explain to people. Even in that thread, I only got useful feedback from one user who offered logical feedback.
> 
> I don't seem to really focus on anything at all... I can if I need/want to, like I'm focused on writing this right now, on the ITR equations when I wrote that thread, etc. But, most of the time, my brain is doing "whatever". Sometimes I have conscious thoughts, but they disappear really fast like sand through fingers.
> 
> Hm, maybe this will help. I wrote this elsewhere:
> 
> _"My overall brainstuff, I don't know what it is, is like bubbles or clouds or cotton candy. Vague and gaseous. But there is also some liquidy stuff in there. But like still liquid. Not frozen, because that would be a solid. Still liquid, just still. Or maybe it only looks still from a distance, idk. It's like a liquid planet? I don't really know how I think tbh, it's too vague and sparse and light as air... it's like it's not there at all and I'm not thinking at all. Like I said, I don't really consciously think."_
> 
> I wrote some more here about how I "see" my thoughts, with pictures.
> 
> Thanks btw. If you don't want to keep helping, that's ok


Ooh, that sounds quite poetic. I can't get my head around what it means in terms of type, other than that vague and gaseous state doesn't sound like a cognition of a rational lead. 

Not having many conscious thoughts is a funny thing. I'm scratching my head as trying to imaging how does it feel... Is it similar to sort of meditative state in any way? Or maybe you consider thoughts being conscious thoughts only when you verbally think something through in your head? As you mentioned it could be the result of medications too.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> I'm quoting you in here because apparently my (our?) technical discussion (this is technical? Lol) is not welcome in the hangout thread... :carrot:


Heh. Yes this falls in that technical category 




> Let me clarify: I have ideas that use existing ideas about twice a year. I have truly original ideas never.


I don't buy that since even I do this more than twice a year. 

I don't think you really defined what this actually means. When you present more options to your boss, I would count that in this category, too.




> Unfortunately yes.


I was joking there.




> Well, you were able to describe Ti in terms of a structure with axioms, hierarchies, etc - which is how I'd describe Ti as well - but I cannot say anything analogous about Ne. I have no conscious experience of Ne. So it seems a little different than your case with Ti. You seem much more aware of Ti than I am of Ne.


I was not that aware of anything in these typologies until I really investigated myself. With the exception of Se, perhaps. That is, I was most easily aware of Se instantly when I looked at myself.




> In general, is it common for creative subtypes to have a relatively unconscious base function? Are base subtypes barely conscious of their creative function then?


Yes to the former, idk about base subtypes

Btw, "unconscious" is not the best word. Supraconscious is what it is  ..It can be made conscious, too.




> ETA Btw also if you have the example of the SLI needing Ne big pictures(?) that you were talking about a while ago? That would be helpful too. But if you don't that's fine. It was a while ago.


I'll just give you the link to a thread where I discussed it with an SLI, starting from post #30 : Differences in Ni-HA for LSI-Se and LSI-Ti




> See that is quite different from me.  Where do you have fun without technical talk IRL, if you do?


With friends, though one of them does make me go to such topics, lol, since he likes to ask about them.




> I think I do view Ti as kind of more 'fun' sometimes, ITR equations being an example of that. But yeah, I'm pretty serious with Ti overall. I see it almost like a second base function. It's an integral part of my life, in coming to conclusions and forming viewpoints, etc.


Sure, I'm like this with Se. Can be used as serious or as fun. Ti mostly just seriously.


----------



## myst91

To_august said:


> Ooh, that sounds quite poetic. I can't get my head around what it means in terms of type, other than that vague and gaseous state doesn't sound like a cognition of a rational lead.


Not a bad point there, it did come off as Irrational




> Not having many conscious thoughts is a funny thing. I'm scratching my head as trying to imaging how does it feel... Does it similar to sort of meditative state in any way? Or maybe you consider thoughts being conscious thoughts only when you verbally think something through in your head? As you mentioned it could be the result of medications too.


I have a pretty empty mind by default too. Maybe me being Gut triad. Idk. 

I know some people do try to reach this state of having an empty mind by meditation.


----------



## counterintuitive

Lol I'm moving this here too :crazy:




myst91 said:


> Umm you didn't have that issue either before the fog?


I still had a wandering mind, lol, it just wasn't as severe and unpleasant. Like I could focus if I wanted to, now I can't focus on something for more than like 8 seconds. Some days it's better and if I sleep more it's also better.



> At work you were fine with it now though? (Referring to your new post in the reinin thread)


Lol I think I might have misspoke there, I was surprised at how fast I could come up with ideas when prompted. Lol. It was automatic :crazy:



> Defensive, why?
> 
> I'm trying to imagine now how I'd react if someone told me to be a go-getter or realistic (Se), lol, I'd feel slightly annoyed, I think. I'd also find this "advice" weird/silly for the most part, like with Ti.


IDK if defensive was the right word, it's kind of defensive(?) but also angry. I get angry when people tell me to think logically because invariably these are idiots who cannot think logically. Like my new boss. Lol.

But the defensiveness can also be characteristic of 1D function, especially 1D valued function i.e. DS :crazy: :crazy:



> What sort of new things are you afraid to try there?


The new thing my new boss was commenting about there was, well, he told me to get a DSLR camera and take up photography. I was like, uh, I have no interest in spending $400 USD on an expensive product to do something I'm not interested in doing. Lol. Then he told me I was closed to new experiences and afraid to try new things. (But I don't think this is true of me in general. ETA: I should have said instead of "because I am..." that "because my boss thinks I am..." he said that because he thinks that, not because it's true.)



> Is it a new workplace now? I'm not sure I'm following here.


No, I should have been clearer, it's the same workplace and same coworkers and everything, we just had an organizational shuffle (people keep leaving for better companies lol) and as a result, my old boss left and now I have a new moron boss.


----------



## counterintuitive

lets mosey said:


> Oh, you were being an ass?
> 
> :tongue:
> 
> Nah, no worries, I didn't take it badly. I shouldn't have jumped into the discussion the way I did.
> 
> Yes, I have this (perhaps absurd) fear that my mind has degraded to the point where it can no longer go back to what it was. I fear parts of my mind have shifted out of existence and I'll always end up in the fog or the muck. When I say uniquely me, I mean I don't feel like much of a person when I'm in the fog. I'm more like a (semi) functioning body or a shell that can't offer anything meaningful or substantial, because meaning and substance are outside of my reach.


No worries! 

Oh, that sounds rough, probably worse than it is for me. I am pretty confident that my physical brain is still intact at least. Plus, I do have a gradual improvement in symptoms (I think?) so I have hope of normalcy again one day. But, I can relate to some of your last sentence, sometimes I just feel like a walking corpse. :shocked:


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> :crazy: :crazy: Oh this possibility is back on the table! Ni ego? Would have to be creative then though because I don't think you'll agree with Ne ignoring (though I think Ne ignoring is also possible lol)


Ehhhh I know you *really* don't want to pin down yourself 

Anyway, I don't really think you are Ni ego, I just find it curious you don't care about the motivations stuff that LII talked about when trying to help that SLI. I don't really know how to investigate this closer tho', atm.




counterintuitive said:


> I still had a wandering mind, lol, it just wasn't as severe and unpleasant. Like I could focus if I wanted to, now I can't focus on something for more than like 8 seconds. Some days it's better and if I sleep more it's also better.


Sounds a bit ADD-ish too.




> Lol I think I might have misspoke there, I was surprised at how fast I could come up with ideas when prompted. Lol. It was automatic :crazy:


Oh. :ninja:




> IDK if defensive was the right word, it's kind of defensive(?) but also angry. I get angry when people tell me to think logically because invariably these are idiots who cannot think logically. Like my new boss. Lol.


Yeah, hmm, an example is when my Identicals (and possibly LSEs as well?) tell me Se things, without really knowing me, just as general advice. I get pretty annoyed at it and I actually lash out at them. If it was just them telling me to think logically I'd probably not even really hear it, let alone react. 

I could possibly see a parallel here, between your Ti vs my Se. Tho my Identicals (and the possible LSEs) don't suck at Se so my direct reason for getting pissed off is different.




> But the defensiveness can also be characteristic of 1D function, especially 1D valued function i.e. DS :crazy: :crazy:


Well, creative is also a Cautious function, like the DS function, I don't know if that's got anything to do with it.




> The new thing my new boss was commenting about there was, well, he told me to get a DSLR camera and take up photography. I was like, uh, I have no interest in spending $400 USD on an expensive product to do something I'm not interested in doing. Lol. Then he told me I was closed to new experiences and afraid to try new things. (But I don't think this is true of me in general)


Lol was he not capable of understanding that you didn't feel like spending this much money? Or that you don't currently have time for a new hobby, etc.?

If he had told me this after I refused to spend 400 USD on this, I'd get pissed again.  How did you react btw?




> No, I should have been clearer, it's the same workplace and same coworkers and everything, we just had an organizational shuffle (people keep leaving for better companies lol) and as a result, my old boss left and now I have a new moron boss.


Gotcha!


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> Ehhhh I know you *really* don't want to pin down yourself


Yeah I noticed this again when I got all excited about the Ni ego possibility lol :crazy: :tongue:



> Anyway, I don't really think you are Ni ego, I just find it curious you don't care about the motivations stuff that LII talked about when trying to help that SLI. I don't really know how to investigate this closer tho', atm.


Yeah, I don't care for the motivations stuff. Definitely not.

Something the other SLI (on 16types) said reminded me of my ESE-Si friend though. He would often find himself at a crossroads with various options/paths forward, but from my POV none of these paths were good. So I'd suggest new options to him, and even recommend which options might lead him where he wants to go based on what I knew about him WRT his skills and interests etc.

However, I can't do this upon first meeting a person or something supernatural like that, lol. Only with people I know for a while (a few weeks or more).

Anyway, that does sound kinda like what the SLI was saying - where he doesn't want to choose a path that would take him somewhere he doesn't want to end up but is not sure which path would take him somewhere good. My ESE friend was not as helpless with this, but he'd still struggle and would say things like "I always worry I'll regret the decisions I'm making now." I did find myself naturally able to help him in this way. :crazy:

But I did not even think about his motivations for wanting each of the options etc., the motivations are simply irrelevant from my POV.

In general, I find it extremely easy to see where each path will most likely lead and then choose the best option to move forward. Tbh when I'm considering future options, I trust my own perceptions of where each option will lead, I don't ask for help. I don't "worry" either like my ESE friend did; I'm extremely confident that they'll be good decisions.



> Yeah, hmm, an example is when my Identicals (and possibly LSEs as well?) tell me Se things, without really knowing me, just as general advice. I get pretty annoyed at it and I actually lash out at them. If it was just them telling me to think logically I'd probably not even really hear it, let alone react.
> 
> I could possibly see a parallel here, between your Ti vs my Se. Tho my Identicals (and the possible LSEs) don't suck at Se so my direct reason for getting pissed off is different.


Oooh yeah the general advice on things that are already obvious to me annoys the fuck out of me. Lol. It's like they've discovered something novel and are giving me advice, and I'm like "DUHHHHHH I've been doing that since I was 5." Lol. :angry: :crazy:



> Well, creative is also a Cautious function, like the DS function, I don't know if that's got anything to do with it.


It could be that, idk. I'm definitely Cautious with Ti and stupid Bold with Fe :laughing: (but that would go for any extravert - well, maybe not the 'stupid' part xD)



> Lol was he not capable of understanding that you didn't feel like spending this much money? Or that you don't currently have time for a new hobby, etc.?


No, my coworkers generally don't understand that I don't have time to pursue their interests in addition to mine. Lol. They think I should want to do whatever boring thing they do :crazy:



> If he had told me this after I refused to spend 400 USD on this, I'd get pissed again.  How did you react btw?


I told him I wasn't interested. I just keep repeating that when people bother me with this crap tbh. Same with the coworker who wants me to dye my hair, etc. Lol. I have a lot of annoying coworkers :laughing:


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> Yeah I noticed this again when I got all excited about the Ni ego possibility lol :crazy: :tongue:


Eh stay Ne>Ni 




> Something the other SLI (on 16types) said reminded me of my ESE-Si friend though. He would often find himself at a crossroads with various options/paths forward, but from my POV none of these paths were good. So I'd suggest new options to him, and even recommend which options might lead him where he wants to go based on what I knew about him WRT his skills and interests etc.


Ah, interesting. I'm definitely different, I prefer to set a goal on my own and then I'll somehow figure out how to get there anyway. 




> However, I can't do this upon first meeting a person or something supernatural like that, lol. Only with people I know for a while (a few weeks or more).


A few weeks isn't a long time for this at all! That sounds pretty strong Ne.




> Anyway, that does sound kinda like what the SLI was saying - where he doesn't want to choose a path that would take him somewhere he doesn't want to end up but is not sure which path would take him somewhere good. My ESE friend was not as helpless with this, but he'd still struggle and would say things like "I always worry I'll regret the decisions I'm making now." I did find myself naturally able to help him in this way. :crazy:


Yes that makes sense. So you weren't seeing him as annoyingly unable to make life decisions for himself? Was this different from what you had in mind about that, if so, how?




> But I did not even think about his motivations for wanting each of the options etc., the motivations are simply irrelevant from my POV.


OK, I don't know why that is. I've seen both alpha NTs and delta NFs delve into that but maybe in a different way for Ti vs Fi.




> In general, I find it extremely easy to see where each path will most likely lead and then choose the best option to move forward. Tbh when I'm considering future options, I trust my own perceptions of where each option will lead, I don't ask for help. I don't "worry" either like my ESE friend did; I'm extremely confident that they'll be good decisions.


Yeah, confidence both in Ne and Ni




> Oooh yeah the general advice on things that are already obvious to me annoys the fuck out of me. Lol. It's like they've discovered something novel and are giving me advice, and I'm like "DUHHHHHH I've been doing that since I was 5." Lol. :angry: :crazy:


Exactly.




> It could be that, idk. I'm definitely Cautious with Ti and stupid Bold with Fe (but that would go for any extravert - well, maybe not the 'stupid' part xD)


:tongue:




> No, my coworkers generally don't understand that I don't have time to pursue their interests in addition to mine. Lol. They think I should want to do whatever boring thing they do :crazy:
> 
> I told him I wasn't interested. I just keep repeating that when people bother me with this crap tbh. Same with the coworker who wants me to dye my hair, etc. Lol. I have a lot of annoying coworkers :laughing:


Ah, I'd brush it off pretty fast tbh. I show to people easily that it's pointless for them to try and press the matter. Especially with such things :dry:


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> Eh stay Ne>Ni


Lol :laughing: :crazy:



> A few weeks isn't a long time for this at all! That sounds pretty strong Ne.


The Ne descriptions and the 40Q Ne block say "as soon as you meet a person" or something though.

I should clarify though - a few weeks means a few weeks of regular interactions with the person. If I just saw them for a short time and didn't really talk to them or w/e, then I wouldn't know enough about their skills/interests/etc.



> Yes that makes sense. So you weren't seeing him as annoyingly unable to make life decisions for himself? Was this different from what you had in mind about that, if so, how?


He was annoying. Among other things, his dependence on me to help him make life decisions is a major reason we are no longer in contact.

Plus, the friendship overall seemed lopsided/asymmetrical, like I was helping him a lot and not getting anything in return.

Then he would get annoyed when I made decisions about *my* future without asking others for advice. He'd say stuff like, "You can't make decisions like that, you don't have enough life experience!" We are the same age and he thought we were "too young" to make life decisions. So he insisted on getting advice from older people, and he would treat their advice as unquestionable gospel just because they were older.

His approach is foreign to me, as I trust my perceptions of where each path/option will lead in the future, and very rarely ask for advice in this area. If I receive unsolicited advice regarding options available to me or where those options are likely to lead, I usually ignore it. Lol.



> OK, I don't know why that is. I've seen both alpha NTs and delta NFs delve into that but maybe in a different way for Ti vs Fi.


Yeah I dunno either, I'm not interested in the deeper motivations mind-reading crap.



> Yeah, confidence both in Ne and Ni


I would actually have to agree with that. :tongue: :crazy:



> Ah, I'd brush it off pretty fast tbh. I show to people easily that it's pointless for them to try and press the matter. Especially with such things :dry:


I guess it does annoy me a bit more than it annoys you. But stating "I am not interested!" has worked lol. They do leave me alone for the most part.


----------



## counterintuitive

I'm really beginning to think I'm an EIE after all. It's hard for me to see Ni ego or Se valuing at all tbh, but otoh, I also can't see Ne ego.

I don't really enjoy discussing ideas. I can come up with them OK when prompted, like the work example I gave earlier, but I don't usually think of ideas or fantastical 'what if' scenarios. I value real-world impacts and getting things done in reality, not only discussing "ideas" and imagination and daydreaming crap. Frankly, if I could avoid daydreaming, I would (it's rather involuntary tbh lol). I would love to have no imagination, no daydreaming, no wandering mind, no brainstorming capability, etc.

I also don't want to bring new ideas to my dual or discuss ideas with my dual. Again, I'm really not interested in discussing ideas. I'd want to be in a relationship with someone who already has their own hobbies, interests, and opportunities and keeps occupied with those on their own. I don't want someone who expects me to spoonfeed them opportunities and interests etc. That's a child, not a partner.


ETA Lol I remember this:



counterintuitive said:


> Sometimes someone hugs me and it feels unusual, in a good way. It has a very grounding effect. I see a hug as showing/expressing emotion _while also_ providing someone else physical comfort, so I see it as a rather Fe/Si gesture. Obviously any type can hug, lol, this is just how I see it for some reason. What's weird is that I've long understood the _emotionally_ comforting factor of a hug. I even offer hugs to friends who are in distress. But I didn't realize until recently that a hug is also supposed to be _physically_ comforting. Lol. I'm 25 and I just figured this out. :crazy: And it is totally physically comforting when someone hugs me, and it has the positive grounding effect - even though I wouldn't even notice that I'm in need of physical comfort. Heh, maybe that's another admission!


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> Lol :laughing: :crazy:


:tongue:




> The Ne descriptions and the 40Q Ne block say "as soon as you meet a person" or something though.


Where do Ne descriptions say that?

The 40q just asks about what you can see when you meet a person and then also asks about how long you need to see talents. 




> I should clarify though - a few weeks means a few weeks of regular interactions with the person. If I just saw them for a short time and didn't really talk to them or w/e, then I wouldn't know enough about their skills/interests/etc.


Sure, it's not like magic, lol.




> He was annoying. Among other things, his dependence on me to help him make life decisions is a major reason we are no longer in contact.
> 
> Plus, the friendship overall seemed lopsided/asymmetrical, like I was helping him a lot and not getting anything in return.


An asymmetrical relationship is never good, yeah. (I'm not talking about ITR here btw)




> Then he would get annoyed when I made decisions about *my* future without asking others for advice. He'd say stuff like, "You can't make decisions like that, you don't have enough life experience!" We are the same age and he thought we were "too young" to make life decisions. So he insisted on getting advice from older people, and he would treat their advice as unquestionable gospel just because they were older.
> 
> His approach is foreign to me, as I trust my perceptions of where each path/option will lead in the future, and very rarely ask for advice in this area. If I receive unsolicited advice regarding options available to me or where those options are likely to lead, I usually ignore it. Lol.


Yeah, S/N conflict here, it seems.




> Yeah I dunno either, I'm not interested in the deeper motivations mind-reading crap.


Good. 




> I would actually have to agree with that. :tongue: :crazy:


:tongue:




counterintuitive said:


> I'm really beginning to think I'm an EIE after all. It's hard for me to see Ni ego or Se valuing at all tbh, but otoh, I also can't see Ne ego.


Really considering it? 

Uhh, I don't want to be biased so I won't really comment on this idea for now. Even if I could find some argument for EIE for you, generally I don't want to type people as my duals too easily, not unless I'm entirely sure it's not just bias having me think so.

(I still think ILE>EIE, anyway, but we'll see )




> I don't really enjoy discussing ideas. I can come up with them OK when prompted, like the work example I gave earlier, but I don't usually think of ideas or fantastical 'what if' scenarios. I value real-world impacts and getting things done in reality, not only discussing "ideas" and imagination and daydreaming crap. Frankly, if I could avoid daydreaming, I would (it's rather involuntary tbh lol). I would love to have no imagination, no daydreaming, no wandering mind, no brainstorming capability, etc.


That sounds a bit weird about not wanting to have the capabilities/things you do have. Why?




> I also don't want to bring new ideas to my dual or discuss ideas with my dual. Again, I'm really not interested in discussing ideas. I'd want to be in a relationship with someone who already has their own hobbies, interests, and opportunities and keeps occupied with those on their own. I don't want someone who expects me to spoonfeed them opportunities and interests etc. That's a child, not a partner.


Hmm. I know a couple ILEs relatively closely, so I'll describe what this idea stuff is like with them. 

I've known one of them for 5+ years now, he does keep bombing me with news/thoughts on those news. Specifically, a lot of tech news and other, imo crazy, stuff. The tech stuff is actually interesting but he very easily overloads me by sending me a lot of links/bringing up so many topics. The crazy stuff is completely nonsense, almost like Se PoLR from my pov, considering possibilities in a way as if they were REAL. I always try to argue with him about that stuff and it's like he doesn't hear me out even when I put in a lot of time/thought into my argument and I know I'm right about how it's pointless unreal stuff. Though recently he actually did get interested when, as part of my argument, I mentioned how people differ in sensitivity to considering certain possibilities. Apparently that was news to him and seemed even somewhat helpful to him.

Btw, that's pretty typical for me with ILEs, when they get lost in some possibility that does not match the real situation where the ILE actually would be better off seeing the real situation (since they want real results in those cases), they have a hard time hearing my realistic argument. Lol, not my problem, really, I just watch and wait until they realize the reality of the situation themselves.  It's only frustrating because I do want to help. :shrug

Overall, sometimes what I say does get through to them, but I have to really push/try a lot of times and I don't always want to bother with that. :shrug

OK, the other ILE I wanted to mention, I'm less close to him but periodically we do/did spend some time talking/meeting. He's apparently dualizing with an SEI now (maybe SLI but SEI is more likely). He keeps bringing up a lot of intellectual topics and keeps nagging the SEI to comment on it... SEI does try hard to comment a bit and it's cute really  He also keeps nagging her to go and learn something new with him, whatever new thing he's currently interested in. He doesn't often convince her to put in much time for that tho'. Btw he did that with me too when he wanted to spend more time with me earlier. :laughing: I usually just politely declined, saying I had no time/no interest in the whatever new stuff etc.




> ETA Lol I remember this:


Yeah, pretty weak Si there. I would still say it sounds more valued than unvalued overall but ... I'll be curious what comes out of the consideration of EIE (tho' I'm skeptical).


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> Where do Ne descriptions say that?
> 
> The 40q just asks about what you can see when you meet a person and then also asks about how long you need to see talents.


Idk, lol, tbh I just remembered that from something/somewhere.

I thought it meant that you should be able to see all of a person's potential when you first meet them. Lol.



> An asymmetrical relationship is never good, yeah. (I'm not talking about ITR here btw)


Yeah, when I said asymmetrical I didn't mean ITR either. I'm pretty sure he was an ESE though.



> Yeah, S/N conflict here, it seems.


Sounds like it, though I've known other S friends (including another ESE) and not had this particular issue with them.



> Really considering it?
> 
> Uhh, I don't want to be biased so I won't really comment on this idea for now. Even if I could find some argument for EIE for you, generally I don't want to type people as my duals too easily, not unless I'm entirely sure it's not just bias having me think so.
> 
> (I still think ILE>EIE, anyway, but we'll see )


Yeah, I didn't believe Se/Ni valuing before, but now I don't see why Ne/Si valuing makes sense, so Se/Ni is just as likely.



> That sounds a bit weird about not wanting to have the capabilities/things you do have. Why?


Involuntary daydreaming/wandering mind is completely useless in the real world. So that's why I wish I didn't have it. I also don't care about 'ideas' so it's utterly useless that I can come up with ideas. I wish I couldn't.



> Hmm. I know a couple ILEs relatively closely, so I'll describe what this idea stuff is like with them.
> 
> I've known one of them for 5+ years now, he does keep bombing me with news/thoughts on those news. Specifically, a lot of tech news and other, imo crazy, stuff. The tech stuff is actually interesting but he very easily overloads me by sending me a lot of links/bringing up so many topics. The crazy stuff is completely nonsense, almost like Se PoLR from my pov, considering possibilities in a way as if they were REAL. I always try to argue with him about that stuff and it's like he doesn't hear me out even when I put in a lot of time/thought into my argument and I know I'm right about how it's pointless unreal stuff. Though recently he actually did get interested when, as part of my argument, I mentioned how people differ in sensitivity to considering certain possibilities. Apparently that was news to him and seemed even somewhat helpful to him.


I definitely don't/wouldn't do this sending of links to other people. Other people send me links and I ignore them unless I specifically asked for them. I figure other people have enough to keep themselves occupied, they don't need to be bombarded with links that *I* find interesting since they might not be interested in the same things (unless they specifically asked).

Even in these instances where I or they asked for the links, these are usually links to studies or journal articles, they are not related to futuristic ideas or whatever crap.



> Btw, that's pretty typical for me with ILEs, when they get lost in some possibility that does not match the real situation where the ILE actually would be better off seeing the real situation (since they want real results in those cases), they have a hard time hearing my realistic argument. Lol, not my problem, really, I just watch and wait until they realize the reality of the situation themselves.  It's only frustrating because I do want to help. :shrug
> 
> Overall, sometimes what I say does get through to them, but I have to really push/try a lot of times and I don't always want to bother with that. :shrug


Yeah, I have absolutely no problem being realistic enough to produce real-world results. I implement my ideas at work literally every day, thereby producing a real result. I have single-handedly implemented more real ideas than the rest of my coworkers combined. Sometimes I think I can't tell if an idea is realistic or not, but this cannot be true as I implement lots of ideas every day without even second-guessing if they are realistic. So I have no problem being realistic.



> OK, the other ILE I wanted to mention, I'm less close to him but periodically we do/did spend some time talking/meeting. He's apparently dualizing with an SEI now (maybe SLI but SEI is more likely). He keeps bringing up a lot of intellectual topics and keeps nagging the SEI to comment on it... SEI does try hard to comment a bit and it's cute really  He also keeps nagging her to go and learn something new with him, whatever new thing he's currently interested in. He doesn't often convince her to put in much time for that tho'. Btw he did that with me too when he wanted to spend more time with me earlier. :laughing: I usually just politely declined, saying I had no time/no interest in the whatever new stuff etc.


He sounds annoying. Again, I leave other people to their own interests and their own focus areas, so I don't bring up topics and nag them to comment. I learn whatever is of interest to me; I don't want to learn it with other people or discuss it with other people. I'd also be less polite in declining lol.



> Yeah, pretty weak Si there. I would still say it sounds more valued than unvalued overall but ... I'll be curious what comes out of the consideration of EIE (tho' I'm skeptical).


Si sucks. Lol. Fuck Si. I think Si PoLR makes sense with how much Si bases annoy me (I mean the way that Si base / Ne DS is described, including the way that you have described it. I don't know anyone who is Si base IRL).

Plus, I'm annoyed by low logic - which fits with seeking high logic. My Ne is also rather unconscious - which fits with Ne demonstrative. EIE.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> Involuntary daydreaming/wandering mind is completely useless in the real world. So that's why I wish I didn't have it. I also don't care about 'ideas' so it's utterly useless that I can come up with ideas. I wish I couldn't.


What makes you think it's completely useless?




> I definitely don't/wouldn't do this sending of links to other people. Other people send me links and I ignore them unless I specifically asked for them. I figure other people have enough to keep themselves occupied, they don't need to be bombarded with links that *I* find interesting since they might not be interested in the same things (unless they specifically asked).
> 
> Even in these instances where I or they asked for the links, these are usually links to studies or journal articles, they are not related to futuristic ideas or whatever crap.


My ILE friend sends links to studies/journal articles, yes. They are actually often very interesting, I just can't look at all of it.

I never said to him not to do it so it's ok. 

The crazy stuff isn't necessarily futuristic, just a crazy kind of philosophizing.




> Yeah, I have absolutely no problem being realistic enough to produce real-world results. I implement my ideas at work literally every day, thereby producing a real result. I have single-handedly implemented more real ideas than the rest of my coworkers combined. Sometimes I think I can't tell if an idea is realistic or not, but this cannot be true as I implement lots of ideas every day without even second-guessing if they are realistic. So I have no problem being realistic.


I wasn't talking about work related situations when I was talking about how the ILEs I know sometimes completely miss the real life situation. 




> He sounds annoying. Again, I leave other people to their own interests and their own focus areas, so I don't bring up topics and nag them to comment. I learn whatever is of interest to me; I don't want to learn it with other people or discuss it with other people. I'd also be less polite in declining lol.


Oh he's not terribly annoying, it's kinda funny, the way he does these things :laughing:

I asked the SEI yesterday if she found it tiring/annoying sometimes, she said, "not sometimes", but also that she's used to it lol




> Plus, I'm annoyed by low logic - which fits with seeking high logic.


I don't think that's specific to Ti seeking but this was discussed before.




> My Ne is also rather unconscious - which fits with Ne demonstrative. EIE.


How are your Ni and your Se in terms of this? (How conscious)


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> What makes you think it's completely useless?


My entire life makes me think that. No one pays me to daydream involuntarily.



> I wasn't talking about work related situations when I was talking about how the ILEs I know sometimes completely miss the real life situation.


Well, most of my life outside of work is spent vomiting, riding my bike, budgeting, investing, and sleeping. So I'm realistic outside of work too. Even more so actually because I don't need to come up with 'ideas'.



> The crazy stuff isn't necessarily futuristic, just a crazy kind of philosophizing.


Sounds useless/pointless, because it has no practical value.



> How are your Ni and your Se in terms of this? (How conscious)


I'm only consciously aware of Ti and Fe.



_Posted from my phone doohickey using some application thing_


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

There is a difference between having the ability to know things about someone as soon as you meet them, and having the desire and motivation to do so. Strength is indicated by ability


----------



## counterintuitive

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> There is a difference between having the ability to know things about someone as soon as you meet them, and having the desire and motivation to do so. Strength is indicated by ability


Correct, and the lack of motivation to do so indicates that IE - Ne - is unvalued.

Also, I don't consciously want to do this either.

Both ILE and EIE have 4D Ne, so the strength isn't being debated here anymore 

ETA, I did think I was ESE before so I guess you might be responding to that.  Eh, I still think I could be ESE but I think my Si sucks too much. Lol.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> My entire life makes me think that. No one pays me to daydream involuntarily.


Hmm, well in my case, there are things beyond money that I'm interested in.




> Well, most of my life outside of work is spent vomiting, riding my bike, budgeting, investing, and sleeping. So I'm realistic outside of work too. Even more so actually because I don't need to come up with 'ideas'.


Well when investing... one may be realistic or not 




> Sounds useless/pointless, because it has no practical value.


My problem is not that it doesn't have practical value (are you trying to play LSE right now?!), the issue is when it conflicts with my sense of reality. If it doesn't, then (some brands of) philosophy can be pretty cool actually. It does conflict too often, so not many good brands there.




> I'm only consciously aware of Ti and Fe.


Tbh that supports ILE the most.


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> Hmm, well in my case, there are things beyond money that I'm interested in.


I used to have more things like that but now money is basically the focus. Lol.



> Well when investing... one may be realistic or not


I'm a very realistic investor and this opinion has been echoed by other people as well - it's not just me who thinks that.

I'm also SP-first, lol, so regardless of Sociotype, I'm very pragmatic in SP areas/concerns (such as financials).



> My problem is not that it doesn't have practical value (are you trying to play LSE right now?!), the issue is when it conflicts with my sense of reality. If it doesn't, then (some brands of) philosophy can be pretty cool actually. It does conflict too often, so not many good brands there.


My problem is that it doesn't have practical value. I don't care for philosophy for this reason. I even scrapped my own theory of justice (a portion of which was actually published in a law journal, lol) because it didn't have practical value. :crazy:



> Tbh that supports ILE the most.


Lol I know inkface: :crazy: :crazy:, ExE-Fe would have very conscious Fe but still wouldn't have conscious Ti inkface:, and ExE-Pi wouldn't have conscious Ti either inkface:

I am stuck again :dry:


ETA No wait, how about IEI? IEI! :crazy: Conscious Ti and Fe suggests xEI or xLE anyway. :crazy:


ETA But idk, I don't seem receptive to Si, when I read about Si comfort crap I think "if you want comfort, just buy a really nice coffin and get in already." Lol


Lol I remember this from way back on page 21 :laughing: :crazy:

(Oh the length of this thread inkface



counterintuitive said:


> *I'm still not really convinced I'm Si seeking.* I find it really annoying when people try to feed me and point out that my lips are chapped or I'm sitting at a weird angle. Like, I just don't care. I don't want food from you. I'm trying to lose weight, not gain it. IDGAF about "comfort" or whatever. You want comfort, why don't ya just buy yourself a coffin and get in already. That's exaggerated but you know what I'm getting at. Why even live life if you're just going to spend it seeking "comfort" and neurotically obsessing over your bodily sensations and _maintaining_ homeostatis? Life isn't about maintaining stuff but _improving_ stuff! What is the point in even living if you're just going to do the same thing over and over again?



ETA Lol this post from the Beta hang out thread suggests I'm not an ethical ego :crazy: :crazy:



counterintuitive said:


> See, to me as a Ti ego, technical discussion _is_ chill time, casual time, fun time, etc. So I'm not taking this thread "too seriously" at all - this is just how I have fun! After a day at work being friendly to coworkers and doing Te-oriented corporate crap :tongue:, I just want to come home and relax with a nice glass of wine (metaphorically - I don't drink) and some technical discussions. Lol. :laughing:
> 
> (Well, at least this confirms again that I'm not an Fe ego! Lol.)
> 
> (...) P.S. I didn't even consider that discussion technical


Also:



counterintuitive said:


> OMG I PUT ILE IN MY TYPE FIELD. THE CLOCK IS TICKING. HERE'S A GAME IDEA, LET'S TAKE BETS ON HOW LONG BEFORE COUNTERINTUITIVE CHANGES OR REMOVES TYPE FROM THE TYPE FIELD :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
> 
> Betting table:
> 
> It's currently 2316 UTC
> 
> 1 hour? 2 hours? 4 hours? 24 hours? 48 hours? 72 hours?! 96 hours?!
> 
> Current record is at 96 hours btw.


I *SUCK* at this. :tongue:


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

You sound Si PoLR to me from your most recent example. Very conscious of Si when it actually IS happening, definitely don't like or want it. That'd make you Dynamic and Ni valuing though....


----------



## counterintuitive

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> You sound Si PoLR to me from your most recent example. Very conscious of Si when it actually IS happening, definitely don't like or want it. That'd make you Dynamic and Ni valuing though....


I agree, I don't appear to value Si at all and it irritates me a whole lot, which contradicts Si DS. Si DS is supposed to seek and crave Si in others, while I avoid Si and as you say, I definitely don't want it. So Si in superego makes sense, actually.


----------



## Immolate

counterintuitive said:


> I agree, I don't appear to value Si at all and it irritates me a whole lot, which contradicts Si DS. Si DS is supposed to seek and crave Si in others, while I avoid Si and as you say, I definitely don't want it. So Si in superego makes sense, actually.


I'm wondering how you'd feel about someone I knew, and whether you'd consider her behavior consistent with Si or something else entirely (like, I don't know, being spoiled).

Picky eater. She was fixated on taste and textures, but especially textures. She did not tolerate yogurt, oatmeal or anything with a similar consistency. (Pudding may have been an exception.) She would only ever take her milk flavored with chocolate, preferably hot. She was against everything-bagels and almond-flavored cakes. Soda was a no-go because of the bubbles. She wiped the grease off her pizza and hated the texture (and sound) of the napkin afterward. The taste of antacid tablets was offensive to her. The texture thing extended to things she touched. Napkins, as I mentioned. Wet things. Rough things. She was very aware of temperature and would ask for the a/c to be turned down during the night or for the blankets to be rearranged.

So on and so forth.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> I used to have more things like that but now money is basically the focus. Lol.


So then it's not type related that you want to denounce the importance of everything else for some reason.




> I'm a very realistic investor and this opinion has been echoed by other people as well - it's not just me who thinks that.
> 
> I'm also SP-first, lol, so regardless of Sociotype, I'm very pragmatic in SP areas/concerns (such as financials).


Alright I was just nitpicking there for fun. 

These ILEs I know usually get these issues with seeing the real situation when they turn off Ti too much, perhaps it also means they turn off all the role Se they have access to by default. 




> My problem is that it doesn't have practical value. I don't care for philosophy for this reason. I even scrapped my own theory of justice (a portion of which was actually published in a law journal, lol) because it didn't have practical value. :crazy:


Hm actually what do you even mean by practical value? Sp things?




> ETA No wait, how about IEI? IEI! :crazy: Conscious Ti and Fe suggests xEI or xLE anyway. :crazy:


Lol the ILE that's currently dualizing with that supposed SEI loves to bring up how about INFJ for him, or whatever other type, exactly in this same manner you are doing it here, lol again. 




> ETA But idk, I don't seem receptive to Si, when I read about Si comfort crap I think "if you want comfort, just buy a really nice coffin and get in already." Lol


You talked about examples on this forum before where you were receptive to Si. So I guess it's not consistent, meaning, either you are not enough receptive to it (not dual seeking) or not consistently aware of receptiveness. The latter would of course make sense for the dual seeking function. 

I can compare this how I'm with my own dual seeking, I don't want to focus on Fe all the time, nah, let alone consciously. Too distant from ego (not ego syntonic enough, remember our discussion on that?). Negative aspects of Fe, I definitely don't care for but interestingly enough I have a tolerance for it at times, depending on how I can process it with ego functions, I think. For other negative aspects such as the bad type of emotional manipulation, kneejerk response of rejection.




> ETA Lol this post from the Beta hang out thread suggests I'm not an ethical ego :crazy: :crazy:


Why? Anyone can get pissed like this 


Btw a few comments on that:



> I find it really annoying when people (...) point out that my lips are chapped or I'm sitting at a weird angle.


That's the negative aspect of Si.




> I don't want food from you. I'm trying to lose weight, not gain it.


Makes sense.




> why don't ya just buy yourself a coffin and get in already. That's exaggerated but you know what I'm getting at. Why even live life if you're just going to spend it seeking "comfort" and neurotically obsessing over your bodily sensations and maintaining homeostatis? Life isn't about maintaining stuff but improving stuff! What is the point in even living if you're just going to do the same thing over and over again?


I don't think Socionics Si is about doing the same thing over and over again, nor is Jungian Si. This is MBTI bullshit.

Anyway, about the homeostasis thingy, that's more Socionics Si, yes - and no, you don't have to do the same thing always to keep that homeostasis, Si as an irrational IE is more flexible than that  also it's Dynamic, so definitely not always the same thing. You are talking more about Si with a Rational lead flavour here, I think so it's not exactly "pure" Si anymore.

OK so you rejecting the focus on Si homeostasis, that may very well just be you not having Si in ego and not necessarily devaluing it. I can say some things about Fe myself that would be parallel to your criticism on Si here. Basically, I wouldn't want it to kick out and replace conscious Ego functions, noo.




> I *SUCK* at this. :tongue:


Ahem.




Fenix Wulfheart said:


> You sound Si PoLR to me from your most recent example. Very conscious of Si when it actually IS happening, definitely don't like or want it. That'd make you Dynamic and Ni valuing though....


Hm? Conscious of it how?

Do you see Ni ego in him? I have yet to see Ni creative much.




counterintuitive said:


> I agree, I don't appear to value Si at all and it irritates me a whole lot, which contradicts Si DS. Si DS is supposed to seek and crave Si in others, while I avoid Si and as you say, I definitely don't want it. So Si in superego makes sense, actually.


It's not a conscious "craving".




lets mosey said:


> I'm wondering how you'd feel about someone I knew, and whether you'd consider her behavior consistent with Si or something else entirely (like, I don't know, being spoiled).
> 
> Picky eater. She was fixated on taste and textures, but especially textures. She did not tolerate yogurt, oatmeal or anything with a similar consistency. (Pudding may have been an exception.) She would only ever take her milk flavored with chocolate, preferably hot. She was against everything-bagels and almond-flavored cakes. Soda was a no-go because of the bubbles. She wiped the grease off her pizza and hated the texture (and sound) of the napkin afterward. The taste of antacid tablets was offensive to her. The texture thing extended to things she touched. Napkins, as I mentioned. Wet things. Rough things. She was very aware of temperature and would ask for the a/c to be turned down during the night or for the blankets to be rearranged.
> 
> So on and so forth.


You really had a lot of time to observe all this about her, why? Lol.

So anyway, this sounds like sensory issues, like in aspergers or other PDD's. 

I could see Si HA grappling with this if I must relate this to type.


----------



## Immolate

myst91 said:


> You really had a lot of time to observe all this about her, why? Lol.
> 
> So anyway, this sounds like sensory issues, like in aspergers or other PDD's.
> 
> I could see Si HA grappling with this if I must relate this to type.


We may or may not have been partners 

I considered sensory issues, but nothing else about her behavior or way of being really said anything more than wanting certain whims satisfied. She was a bit infantile in that regard, wanting to be taken care of and so on. I remember having a conversation with someone about this:

"She woke up during the night and asked for her feet to be covered because it was too cold."
"Yeah?"
"Yeah. She needs and notices things a lot. She'll ask for a glass of water out of nowhere."
"She's demanding, but you'll do these things for her anyway, right?"
"Uh."

I'd considered EII and SEI for her in the past.


----------



## myst91

lets mosey said:


> We may or may not have been partners


Oh I didn't mean it that way, I meant, why all the time put into observing these little Si things and analyzing them :tongue:




> I considered sensory issues, but nothing else about her behavior or way of being really said anything more than wanting certain whims satisfied. She was a bit infantile in that regard, wanting to be taken care of and so on. I remember having a conversation with someone about this:
> 
> "She woke up during the night and asked for her feet to be covered because it was too cold."
> "Yeah?"
> "Yeah. She needs and notices things a lot. She'll ask for a glass of water out of nowhere."
> "She's demanding, but you'll do these things for her anyway, right?"
> "Uh."
> 
> I'd considered EII and SEI for her in the past.


OK, in that case Si HA. SEI doesn't want to be taken care of since they can do it themselves, also I'd imagine strong Si to be able to adjust better to these little things that bother her so much.


----------



## Immolate

myst91 said:


> Oh I didn't mean it that way, I meant, why all the time put into observing these little things and analyzing them :tongue:


Oh, apparently, it's what I do. You will always catch me overthinking something.



> OK, in that case Si HA. SEI doesn't want to be taken care of since they can do it themselves, also I'd imagine strong Si to be able to adjust better to these little things that bother her so much.


Yes, this seems about right. Our relationship stemmed from years of friendship and there was always a divide between us. I never felt I could address or take care of her needs (a lot of which seemed superfluous to me) but especially her emotional needs, and she was too soft and non-confrontational to properly tear down my walls. It was quite the ride.


----------



## myst91

lets mosey said:


> Oh, apparently, it's what I do. You will always catch me overthinking something.


Haha alright




> Yes, this seems about right. Our relationship stemmed from years of friendship and there was always a divide between us. I never felt I could address or take care of her needs (a lot of which seemed superfluous to me) but especially her emotional needs, and she was too soft and non-confrontational to properly tear down my walls. It was quite the ride.


Sounds like you are Se seeking.

P.S. I'll try to find the time later to go back to your type thread.


----------



## Immolate

myst91 said:


> Haha alright
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you are Se seeking.
> 
> P.S. I'll try to find the time later to go back to your type thread.


No pressure


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

No, I don't see counter as Ni Ego. That's why it would be a problem if Si PoLR. Gaaah. I don't know, man.


----------



## owlet

counterintuitive said:


> I agree, I don't appear to value Si at all and it irritates me a whole lot, which contradicts Si DS. Si DS is supposed to seek and crave Si in others, while I avoid Si and as you say, I definitely don't want it. So Si in superego makes sense, actually.


I don't know if you want any more input, but...
What do you think of Role Si?


> The individual dislikes it when others emphasize the need for relaxation, enjoyment, and activities that are supposed to bring these about, because what they need internally is just the opposite — a need for action and resolve. Rather than spend their time trying to "listen to what their body is telling them," they need to have clear external demands that are able to overcome their sense of uncertainty and hesitation.


(From here.)
Might point towards to EIE, which you were considering anyway.


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> Hm actually what do you even mean by practical value? Sp things?


Anything that directly impacts my life. So, going grocery shopping, going to work/making money, investing said money, building a social network - business/work networking opportunities and other stuff comes out of this, e.g. I have befriended people who can give me free advice in their field of work.



> Lol the ILE that's currently dualizing with that supposed SEI loves to bring up how about INFJ for him, or whatever other type, exactly in this same manner you are doing it here, lol again.


Yeah that's real funny.



> You talked about examples on this forum before where you were receptive to Si. So I guess it's not consistent, meaning, either you are not enough receptive to it (not dual seeking) or not consistently aware of receptiveness. The latter would of course make sense for the dual seeking function.


Of course, it could be unaware/unconscious receptiveness, which yes, would make sense for DS function. But in that case, I have no way to confirm that's what it is. I'm not aware of it, so I can't confirm it. So I cannot assert that I'm Si DS.



> Why? Anyone can get pissed like this


I was referring specifically to my preference for technical discussion and having technical discussion for casual/fun times, not "getting pissed" (and if that's getting pissed, you haven't seen nothing yet ).



> I don't think Socionics Si is about doing the same thing over and over again, nor is Jungian Si. This is MBTI bullshit.
> 
> Anyway, about the homeostasis thingy, that's more Socionics Si, yes - and no, you don't have to do the same thing always to keep that homeostasis, Si as an irrational IE is more flexible than that  also it's Dynamic, so definitely not always the same thing. You are talking more about Si with a Rational lead flavour here, I think so it's not exactly "pure" Si anymore.
> 
> OK so you rejecting the focus on Si homeostasis, that may very well just be you not having Si in ego and not necessarily devaluing it. I can say some things about Fe myself that would be parallel to your criticism on Si here. Basically, I wouldn't want it to kick out and replace conscious Ego functions, noo.


Homeostatis is about maintaining things as is, keeping conditions stable and constant. That's doing the same thing over and over again, constancy as opposed to change. I want things to be changing as much as possible and as such I don't seek or find any importance whatsoever in homeostatis. Homeostatis is everything that is wrong with the world. Fuck homeostasis. I don't want a fucking same-same homeostasis life sentence with an Si base dual. I might as well just die now in that case.


----------



## counterintuitive

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> No, I don't see counter as Ni Ego. That's why it would be a problem if Si PoLR. Gaaah. I don't know, man.


Right, I don't really think Ni ego either. But then, I don't see myself as Si DS, and I can't confirm either way - because even if I'm Si DS, it would be *unconsciously* sought.




owlet said:


> I don't know if you want any more input, but...
> What do you think of Role Si?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The individual dislikes it when others emphasize the need for relaxation, enjoyment, and activities that are supposed to bring these about, because what they need internally is just the opposite — a need for action and resolve. Rather than spend their time trying to "listen to what their body is telling them," they need to have clear external demands that are able to overcome their sense of uncertainty and hesitation.
> 
> 
> 
> (From here.)
> Might point towards to EIE, which you were considering anyway.
Click to expand...

Sure! Thanks. I actually relate to that Role Si a lot, I wasn't expecting to relate to it much, but I do. Huh. The exception is that I don't see uncertainty as something to overcome, and I don't have much hesitation.

EIE doesn't have role Si though, that would be IEI - which is also possible.




lets mosey said:


> I'm wondering how you'd feel about someone I knew, and whether you'd consider her behavior consistent with Si or something else entirely (like, I don't know, being spoiled).
> 
> Picky eater. She was fixated on taste and textures, but especially textures. She did not tolerate yogurt, oatmeal or anything with a similar consistency. (Pudding may have been an exception.) She would only ever take her milk flavored with chocolate, preferably hot. She was against everything-bagels and almond-flavored cakes. Soda was a no-go because of the bubbles. She wiped the grease off her pizza and hated the texture (and sound) of the napkin afterward. The taste of antacid tablets was offensive to her. The texture thing extended to things she touched. Napkins, as I mentioned. Wet things. Rough things. She was very aware of temperature and would ask for the a/c to be turned down during the night or for the blankets to be rearranged.
> 
> So on and so forth.


Well, hm, it's her business, I'm not really bothered or anything but obviously I wouldn't want to be in a relationship or anything with someone like this.

Wanting to be taken care of (as you said in a later post) sounds like a spoiled child indeed. I know many people like this (mostly men* tbh) who are seeking a partner/SO to "take care" of them. They don't want an equal partnership, they want someone else to "take care" of them! It blows my mind. Not saying this person is like that, but it's possible from your description.

*I mention this only because I think women are taught more often to take care of themselves in everyday matters, most men are raised to believe it's "women's work" and beneath them. But this is thankfully changing. I was raised to be self-sufficient for example.


----------



## owlet

counterintuitive said:


> Sure! Thanks. I actually relate to that Role Si a lot, I wasn't expecting to relate to it much, but I do. Huh. The exception is that I don't see uncertainty as something to overcome, and I don't have much hesitation.
> 
> EIE doesn't have role Si though, that would be IEI - which is also possible.


Do you think you'd see uncertainty as something to overcome if you had it?

Oh man, I did not notice that typo. I meant IEI, sorry.


----------



## myst91

-


----------



## counterintuitive

owlet said:


> Do you think you'd see uncertainty as something to overcome if you had it?
> 
> Oh man, I did not notice that typo. I meant IEI, sorry.


I have a lot of uncertainty and I see ambiguity in basically everything. I don't see uncertainty or ambiguity as something to overcome. I'm able to take decisive action despite it.

No problem


----------



## Immolate

@counterintuitive Ah, no, I didn't mean to bring her up as a way to pass judgment on her or people like her. I more so wanted to know if that's the type of behavior or focus you were against. Do you pay attention to that kind of thing in the first place, for example? Are you bothered enough by sensory things that they become an issue for you? Her noticing these things was very bizarre to me because they hardly ever registered for me, and if I was uncomfortable in some way, I preferred to just knuckle through it. Granted, that doesn't have to be related to Si or type at all. You make a good point about gender role and self-sufficiency. I'm going to try to offer a proper reply once I'm off this doohickey.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> Anything that directly impacts my life. So, going grocery shopping, going to work/making money, investing said money, building a social network - business/work networking opportunities and other stuff comes out of this, e.g. I have befriended people who can give me free advice in their field of work.


I see, so sp/so stuff, lol




> Of course, it could be unaware/unconscious receptiveness, which yes, would make sense for DS function. But in that case, I have no way to confirm that's what it is. I'm not aware of it, so I can't confirm it. So I cannot assert that I'm Si DS.


In my case, I confirmed it mostly by retrospective analysis of a lot of stuff. And just umm, deeper introspection on top of all that.




> I was referring specifically to my preference for technical discussion and having technical discussion for casual/fun times, not "getting pissed" (and if that's getting pissed, you haven't seen nothing yet ).


Ooh gotcha, I was talking about a different quote. 

Lol it wasn't terrible or anything, about the getting pissed 




> Homeostasis is about maintaining things as is, keeping conditions stable and constant. That's doing the same thing over and over again, constancy as opposed to change. I want things to be changing as much as possible and as such I don't seek or find any importance whatsoever in homeostatis. Homeostatis is everything that is wrong with the world. Fuck homeostasis. I don't want a fucking same-same homeostasis life sentence with an Si base dual. I might as well just die now in that case.


No that's not doing the same thing over and over again.

Again, don't mix MBTI into Socionics. 

I think you are mostly against Ne PoLR here. Irrational Si base is more flexible and changing.

Really, let go of all MBTI definitions here, it sounds like it's affecting your Socionics-based evaluation of things and people and that just messes up things.




counterintuitive said:


> Sure! Thanks. I actually relate to that Role Si a lot, I wasn't expecting to relate to it much, but I do. Huh. *The exception is that I don't see uncertainty as something to overcome*, and I don't have much hesitation.


The bolded is Ne valuing.




counterintuitive said:


> I have a lot of uncertainty and I see ambiguity in basically everything. I don't see uncertainty or ambiguity as something to overcome. I'm able to take decisive action despite it.


Again, Ne valuing and strong Ne at that.




lets mosey said:


> Ah, no, I didn't mean to bring her up as a way to pass judgment on her or people like her. I more so wanted to know if that's the type of behavior or focus you were against. Do you pay attention to that kind of thing in the first place, for example? Are you bothered enough by sensory things that they become an issue for you? Her noticing these things was very bizarre to me because they hardly ever registered for me, and if I was uncomfortable in some way, I preferred to just knuckle through it. Granted, that doesn't have to be related to Si or type at all. You make a good point about gender role and self-sufficiency. I'm going to try to offer a proper reply once I'm off this doohickey.


I think that stuff is not really Si DS so this isn't really going to lead anywhere.

Si DS is more unconscious of these things, this is a good description: _"The individual tends to be chronically unaware of his own bodily processes, including physiological sensations and a sense of balance and alignment with one's true desires. He sometimes has peculiar preferences or tastes, which he himself is unable to understand or fulfill."_ (From wikisocion Si page)


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Yeah...Si is Dynamic, so it won't be static and inflexible like that. I agree with Myst, it sounds like you want to avoid those that devalue Ne that are also not strong at Ne. So, Ne in the Super-ego in general.


----------



## Immolate

@myst91 I was interested in his overall attitude or perception of Si, and you're saying he would be even worse and unconsciously seek help in others. That sounds inconvenient to those close to him. (Heh, sorry, counterintuitive. You may be that child you speak of after all.)

Regarding homeostasis and where he may be coming from with that: Si base trying to maintain personal comforts and preferences, which would seem repetitive and inflexible on the surface, but Si base is also going to be receptive to change and ingenuity. I agree it sounds like he would have more of a problem with Ne PoLR types. 

I'm still on my phone, so I apologize for the half-hearted responses.


----------



## owlet

counterintuitive said:


> I have a lot of uncertainty and I see ambiguity in basically everything. I don't see uncertainty or ambiguity as something to overcome. I'm able to take decisive action despite it.
> 
> No problem


I think to an extent everyone deals with uncertainty, but the way you deal with it (to seemingly not pay it attention) seems like it might be Ne ignoring. It comes across as you don't see it as a big deal.
What do you think?

* *






> The individual understands "external" connections made between different areas of knowledge and experience, but prefers to focus instead on "hidden" connections that have a special significance and help understand the mysterious, hidden nature of things. He is able to readily grasp the intrinsic potential of a given thing or situation, but prefers to restrict indulging such assessments in the face of understanding the latent processes underpinning said things.


----------



## counterintuitive

lets mosey said:


> @counterintuitive Ah, no, I didn't mean to bring her up as a way to pass judgment on her or people like her. I more so wanted to know if that's the type of behavior or focus you were against. Do you pay attention to that kind of thing in the first place, for example? Are you bothered enough by sensory things that they become an issue for you? Her noticing these things was very bizarre to me because they hardly ever registered for me, and if I was uncomfortable in some way, I preferred to just knuckle through it. Granted, that doesn't have to be related to Si or type at all. You make a good point about gender role and self-sufficiency. I'm going to try to offer a proper reply once I'm off this doohickey.


Gotcha, sorry, I wasn't sure how to respond before. Hm, I'm not bothered at all by sensory things. For instance, taste, texture, and temperature which you mentioned are not things that bother me, like, ever. If something tastes bad, I'll either make it taste good, or just suck it up and eat it anyway (depending on the food item, or if I'm at someone's house and I have to politely eat bad food lol - but this is uncommon). If the room is too hot or too cold, I just turn on a fan or a heater, put on a sweater, it's a non-issue. I wouldn't even mention it to someone else, I'd just fix it.



lets mosey said:


> @myst91 I was interested in his overall attitude or perception of Si, and you're saying he would be even worse and unconsciously seek help in others. That sounds inconvenient to those close to him. (Heh, sorry, counterintuitive. You may be that child you speak of after all.)


No. I've been taking care of my every need since I was an adult (and even before that, to be honest). But I can't prove that, so there's no point in discussing further, I guess.




owlet said:


> I think to an extent everyone deals with uncertainty, but the way you deal with it (to seemingly not pay it attention) seems like it might be Ne ignoring. It comes across as you don't see it as a big deal.
> What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> The individual understands "external" connections made between different areas of knowledge and experience, but prefers to focus instead on "hidden" connections that have a special significance and help understand the mysterious, hidden nature of things. He is able to readily grasp the intrinsic potential of a given thing or situation, but prefers to restrict indulging such assessments in the face of understanding the latent processes underpinning said things
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't see uncertainty as a big deal. Hm, I don't really relate to this though. I'm not good at understanding "external connections made between different areas of knowledge and experience", nor do I focus on "hidden connections" or any of that other mystical garbage. I also don't "readily grasp the intrinsic potential of a given thing or situation", that again sounds like speculative garbage.


----------



## Immolate

counterintuitive said:


> Gotcha, sorry, I wasn't sure how to respond before. Hm, I'm not bothered at all by sensory things. For instance, taste, texture, and temperature which you mentioned are not things that bother me, like, ever. If something tastes bad, I'll either make it taste good, or just suck it up and eat it anyway (depending on the food item, or if I'm at someone's house and I have to politely eat bad food lol - but this is uncommon). If the room is too hot or too cold, I just turn on a fan or a heater, put on a sweater, it's a non-issue. I wouldn't even mention it to someone else, I'd just fix it.


Yes, I relate to this, except the "make it taste good" or "put on a sweater" bit. I can be a bit of a masochist.



> No. I've been taking care of my every need since I was an adult (and even before that, to be honest). But I can't prove that, so there's no point in discussing further, I guess.


I was teasing, and I believe you when you say you are self-sufficient and capable of addressing needs like this.


----------



## myst91

lets mosey said:


> @myst91 I was interested in his overall attitude or perception of Si, and you're saying he would be even worse and unconsciously seek help in others. That sounds inconvenient to those close to him. (Heh, sorry, counterintuitive. You may be that child you speak of after all.)


No, that's completely off base. Sure the IxE's are pretty "infantile" but it's not about inconveniencing others. Unconscious dual seeking means there is no explicit requests made for the DS function. Si egos will not even wait until the Si superid person has a real problem anyway since they provide strong Si output. 

That btw goes way way beyond cooking for example, which is not a Si specific thing at all (since the action of cooking can be approached by Se etc too just fine). It's simply the Si ego existing the way he/she already exists giving out Si. 

Some more info here:

Socionics - the16types.info forums

ENTp - ISFp duality description Meged and Ovcharov





> Regarding homeostasis and where he may be coming from with that: Si base trying to maintain personal comforts and preferences, which would seem repetitive and inflexible on the surface, but Si base is also going to be receptive to change and ingenuity. I agree it sounds like he would have more of a problem with Ne PoLR types.


Yes but apparently @counterintuitive can't yet tell Si base from Si demonstrative. Btw the Si bases I know do not seem inflexible at all. They give off this slightly passive attitude but there is no trace of inflexibility in it that Rational Ne PoLR does have. I'm not sure about how it would appear repetitive to you, either - it's more just a very down to earth outlook but it does not require repetition all the time.




owlet said:


> I think to an extent everyone deals with uncertainty, but the way you deal with it (to seemingly not pay it attention) seems like it might be Ne ignoring. It comes across as you don't see it as a big deal.
> What do you think?


To me it seems more like he just finds uncertainty and ambiguity natural. Doesn't seem like he doesn't pay attention.


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> I see, so sp/so stuff, lol


Basically. I did think of some more things, but basically still SP/SO stuff. Though I'm very realistic when it comes to SP/SO stuff. Lol.



> In my case, I confirmed it mostly by retrospective analysis of a lot of stuff. And just umm, deeper introspection on top of all that.


Oh. Well, I guess that's my problem right there; I don't really analyze stuff in retrospect in the sense that I don't reflect much on past happenings, and I'm basically incapable of introspection :laughing:.



> No that's not doing the same thing over and over again.
> 
> Again, don't mix MBTI into Socionics.
> 
> I think you are mostly against Ne PoLR here. Irrational Si base is more flexible and changing.
> 
> Really, let go of all MBTI definitions here, it sounds like it's affecting your Socionics-based evaluation of things and people and that just messes up things.


Homeostasis is more Socionics Si and not MBTI Si. Wikipedia defines homeostasis as: _"Homeostasis or homoeostasis is the property of a system in which variables are regulated so that internal conditions remain stable and relatively constant"_ So it is about conditions remaining stable and constant, i.e. doing the same thing over and over again instead of changing things.

In this post there is the following description of the Si type (Si base) by Marie-Louise Von Franz:



Marie-Louise Von Franz said:


> The negative aspect of sensation is that the type gets stuck in concrete reality. As Jung once noted, for them the future does not exist, future possibilities do not exist, they are in the here and the now, and there is an iron curtain before them. They behave in life as though it will always be the same as it is now; they are incapable of conceiving that things might change.


I am objecting to *_exactly_* this viewpoint - which is something that Jung and his pupil Von Franz noted about the Si base type. So this is Jungian Si, not MBTI Si.

As for Ne PoLR... well, IxE is supposed to see xSI as uncreative, narrow-minded, lacking in lateral thinking, etc. But I don't see you as any of those things. We already talked about logical creativity elsewhere. I see you as logical, steady, Rational, intelligent, wanting to take real action, goal-oriented, practical, focused, ... You're basically everything I want to be.


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> ENTp - ISFp duality description Meged and Ovcharov


Brb killing myself.



> Yes but apparently @counterintuitive can't yet tell Si base from Si demonstrative. Btw the Si bases I know do not seem inflexible at all. They give off this slightly passive attitude but there is no trace of inflexibility in it that Rational Ne PoLR does have. I'm not sure about how it would appear repetitive to you, either - it's more just a very down to earth outlook but it does not require repetition all the time.


Passivity is repulsive. I'm too passive myself, I need someone else to push me into action, not be even more passive. I'm also too irrational and indecisive, I need someone who is more rational to help me with decision making. Not that I would ever accept help in reality, but this is what I need, if I ever wanted to accept it.



> To me it seems more like he just finds uncertainty and ambiguity natural. Doesn't seem like he doesn't pay attention.


It's definitely not natural. I always try to be more sure of things and I wish I could be, but I can't. It sucks. I want to close doors and shut down options but I can't bring myself to do it. Most days I wish I'd never been born because of the ambiguity. I don't know where I'm going in life, I don't see any point in being alive because of this.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> Gotcha, sorry, I wasn't sure how to respond before. Hm, I'm not bothered at all by sensory things. For instance, taste, texture, and temperature which you mentioned are not things that bother me, like, ever. If something tastes bad, I'll either make it taste good, or just suck it up and eat it anyway (depending on the food item, or if I'm at someone's house and I have to politely eat bad food lol - but this is uncommon). If the room is too hot or too cold, I just turn on a fan or a heater, put on a sweater, it's a non-issue. I wouldn't even mention it to someone else, I'd just fix it.


Ah you posted while I was writing. I'm curious how fast do you notice that it's too hot etc? 

Btw where I really see the low Si in you is how easily you turn focus away (don't even have it in the first place ) from the concrete details but instead everything is ambiguous to you. Also in your video I saw... You're quite the opposite of "down to earth" 

I would however not make any assumptions from that on whether you can feed yourself without complaining. I have no doubts that you can. My ILE friend, the one I've known for a long time, can too, but I always find his way of doing so amusing and a bit strange (no, not in a wrong way, I'm not judging it). 




> No. I've been taking care of my every need since I was an adult (and even before that, to be honest). But I can't prove that, so there's no point in discussing further, I guess.


That part of his/her post (minus the teasing), uhhh. I don't know how many IxE's @lets mosey knows but that was so completely off base. 




> Yeah, I don't see uncertainty as a big deal. Hm, I don't really relate to this though. I'm not good at understanding "external connections made between different areas of knowledge and experience", nor do I focus on "hidden connections" or any of that other mystical garbage. I also don't "readily grasp the intrinsic potential of a given thing or situation", that again sounds like speculative garbage.


The question would be, why do you think this is mystical or speculative garbage?

How do you think you can do your investing so well without having that strong grasp of what has potential, or how do you see the way to improvement in this world without having this understanding?




lets mosey said:


> Yes, I relate to this, except the "make it taste good" or "put on a sweater" bit. I can be a bit of a masochist.


Lol why do you do the masochism?


----------



## owlet

counterintuitive said:


> Yeah, I don't see uncertainty as a big deal. Hm, I don't really relate to this though. I'm not good at understanding "external connections made between different areas of knowledge and experience", nor do I focus on "hidden connections" or any of that other mystical garbage. I also don't "readily grasp the intrinsic potential of a given thing or situation", that again sounds like speculative garbage.


Maybe not Ignoring then! Have you had a look at Si in different positions? Haha, I think the descriptions can make very concrete aspects of Ni sound mystical, which is misleading. 'Hidden connections' to me just sounds like a focus on reading between the lines or hearing the unspoken aspect of words (which is a big part of language). Grasping intrinsic potential sounds like say if you walk into a room of people and you pick up on their various signals, the context etc. and where that could lead them, or something like that.
What do you think of:


> The individual is perfectly adept at evaluating his physical state and the quality of his sensations, but gives priority to the external act of experiencing and interacting with the world. He gets impatient with those who stubbornly focus on harmony and equilibrium when there are things to be done in the outside world. According to these types, the exploration of the sensations is something that should be done in private on one's own time, but in public people should be ready to interact, get involved, and command situations without having to weigh out everything first.





myst91 said:


> To me it seems more like he just finds uncertainty and ambiguity natural. Doesn't seem like he doesn't pay attention.


Maybe so. I don't like to assume, though, in case I'm on the wrong track.


----------



## Immolate

myst91 said:


> That part of his/her post (minus the teasing), uhhh. I don't know how many IxE's @*lets mosey* knows but that was so completely off base.


His past criticisms have been about not wanting any form of caretaking in his relationships and I felt like poking him. Clearly I fumbled, lol.



> Lol why do you do the masochism?


Just this belief that giving in to the body's needs is a sign of weakness, that I should be able to overcome my base instincts, but at the same time I don't always notice my body is feeling or acting a certain way. Someone noticed I was shaking the other day and I realized I was hungry, for example, but I usually try to make myself hold on a bit longer. I don't want to take the conversation away from @*counterintuitive* , though.



counterintuitive said:


> Brb killing myself.





> When The Seeker loses vital tonus and begins neglect his duties, The Mediator 'arranges an emotional episode' for him and by this raises his spirits.


That bad, huh?


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> Homeostasis is more Socionics Si and not MBTI Si. Wikipedia defines homeostasis as: _"Homeostasis or homoeostasis is the property of a system in which variables are regulated so that internal conditions remain stable and relatively constant"_ So it is about conditions remaining stable and constant, i.e. doing the same thing over and over again instead of changing things.


No, an assumption is made here - that doing the same thing always is what is required to keep the homeostasis stable. Nope. The body apparently likes more variety than that.  Si ego is good at seeing what sensations they need at a time. Where they are not good is finding new things beyond the sensory variety they are able to find on their own and that's where Ne can shake up their world, supposedly. 




> In this post there is the following description of the Si type (Si base) by Marie-Louise Von Franz:
> (...)
> I am objecting to *_exactly_* this viewpoint - which is something that Jung and his pupil Von Franz noted about the Si base type. So this is Jungian Si, not MBTI Si.


We are not discussing jungian Si here. roud:

Socionics goes further in that it fleshes out the implications Jung and his students didn't go into too much (though they do mention it, even for Si!), on how these dominant functions have an unconscious openness to their complementary.

So where it says Si can't imagine the new, Socionics fleshes out how this inability also comes with some receptiveness to the novelty of Ne, even though they can't generate it on their own much.




> As for Ne PoLR... well, IxE is supposed to see xSI as uncreative, narrow-minded, lacking in lateral thinking, etc. But I don't see you as any of those things. We already talked about logical creativity elsewhere. I see you as logical, steady, Rational, intelligent, wanting to take real action, goal-oriented, practical, focused, ... You're basically everything I want to be.


Well lol I'm definitely lacking in lateral thinking but narrow-mindedness is something else entirely. I try to always take in and process new data so I'm more open in that sense. Thanks btw but no need to idealize too much :laughing:




counterintuitive said:


> Brb killing myself.


See if reading EIE/LSI kills you more at the first link if you want.  Along with the other description of ILE/SEI there, of course.




> Passivity is repulsive. I'm too passive myself, I need someone else to push me into action, not be even more passive. I'm also too irrational and indecisive, I need someone who is more rational to help me with decision making. Not that I would ever accept help in reality, but this is what I need, if I ever wanted to accept it.


It's not the Ni kind of passivity. I'll be curious what you think about those parts being addressed in the descriptions I linked.




> It's definitely not natural. I always try to be more sure of things and I wish I could be, but I can't. It sucks. I want to close doors and shut down options but I can't bring myself to do it. Most days I wish I'd never been born because of the ambiguity. I don't know where I'm going in life, I don't see any point in being alive because of this.


That sounds a bit depressive too so I don't know if type related. Ne demonstrative (of EIE brand specifically, not LIE) can have an issue with inability to choose one of too many options and they don't want more possibilities to disorient them but I don't see them bring it up in the enthusiastic seeming way you sometimes do it where you declare you don't want to get stuck. I may be misunderstanding the seemingly enthusiastic way tho'.




owlet said:


> Maybe not Ignoring then! Have you had a look at Si in different positions? Haha, I think the descriptions can make very concrete aspects of Ni sound mystical, which is misleading. 'Hidden connections' to me just sounds like a focus on reading between the lines or hearing the unspoken aspect of words (which is a big part of language). Grasping intrinsic potential sounds like say if you walk into a room of people and you pick up on their various signals, the context etc. and where that could lead them, or something like that.
> What do you think of:


Looking at each IE in the different positions, without first getting the basics right (for the typing of the person being typed, I mean) is kinda pointless. 




> Maybe so. I don't like to assume, though, in case I'm on the wrong track.


I said SEEMS. He's free to add to it/correct, obviously. You did the same thing I did by the way. You just added the question "what do you think?" and you put in a "might" word. :tongue:


----------



## counterintuitive

lets mosey said:


> Yes, I relate to this, except the "make it taste good" or "put on a sweater" bit. I can be a bit of a masochist.


Haha. Well, I can't imagine not noticing these things let alone not reacting to them 



> I was teasing, and I believe you when you say you are self-sufficient and capable of addressing needs like this.


Gotcha! :kitteh:




myst91 said:


> Ah you posted while I was writing. I'm curious how fast do you notice that it's too hot etc?


I'm usually one of the first to notice.



> Btw where I really see the low Si in you is how easily you turn focus away (don't even have it in the first place ) from the concrete details but instead everything is ambiguous to you. Also in your video I saw... You're quite the opposite of "down to earth"


I struggle to focus on concrete details, yes. But I don't see temperature changes, taste, etc as concrete details. Of course they are concrete, but not details.



> I would however not make any assumptions from that on whether you can feed yourself without complaining. I have no doubts that you can. My ILE friend, the one I've known for a long time, can too, but I always find his way of doing so amusing and a bit strange (no, not in a wrong way, I'm not judging it).


Sounds idiosyncratic (for your friend).

I can feed myself just fine, as you say. Others often ask me for recipes. I bring lunch to work and my coworkers are like "Wow, that looks good! What is it?" That's when I get annoyed. I have no problem grocery shopping, preparing food, eating food, etc. (I actually enjoy it, lol) but where I get annoyed is when I have to explain this to other people.

So if I can feed myself just fine (hell, I'm the only person I know who drinks enough water xD), clothe myself just fine, maintain temperatures just fine, and so on - what do I need the Si ego for exactly? (not a rhetorical question)



> The question would be, why do you think this is mystical or speculative garbage?


I have no way to tell if it's true or not.



> How do you think you can do your investing so well without having that strong grasp of what has potential, or how do you see the way to improvement in this world without having this understanding?


I read books and other resources on investing, think well-known names like William Bernstein and Jack (aka John) Bogle, and I follow what they say to the letter. I don't attempt to read the market (no faster way to lose money than to try to read the market and see its future potentials, lol) nor do I invest in companies individually. I only buy mutual funds, index funds specifically (lower fees). Even trained money managers rarely outperform the market (about 10% of the time), so I certainly don't believe I can. Lol.


----------



## myst91

lets mosey said:


> His past criticisms have been about not wanting any form of caretaking in his relationships and I felt like poking him. Clearly I fumbled, lol.


Lol I see.




> Just this belief that giving in to the body's needs is a sign of weakness, that I should be able to overcome my base instincts, but at the same time I don't always notice my body is feeling or acting a certain way. Someone noticed I was shaking the other day and I realized I was hungry, for example, but I usually try to make myself hold on a bit longer. I don't want to take the conversation away from @*counterintuitive* , though.


Interesting... if you want, post in your own type thread about why you have this motivation of not being "weak" in this way, and let me know if you posted there. 

I'm off now, tho', back later.


----------



## owlet

myst91 said:


> Looking at each IE in the different positions, without first getting the basics right is kinda pointless.


What would you say are the basics? I'm fairly new to socionics, so I don't know if I'm going about it the right way (just the way that makes most sense to me). Please feel free to correct my method.



> I said SEEMS. He's free to add to it/correct, obviously. You did the same thing I did by the way. You just added the question "what do you think?" and you put in a "might" word. :tongue:


You said 'seems more' which implied a certain level of confidence to me. I apologise if I was mistaken.
Actually, I was genuinely asking what he thought. I haven't got enough information to form any kind of real opinion - just testing out vague ideas.


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> No, an assumption is made here - that doing the same thing always is what is required to keep the homeostasis stable. Nope. The body apparently likes more variety than that.  Si ego is good at seeing what sensations they need at a time. Where they are not good is finding new things beyond the sensory variety they are able to find on their own and that's where Ne can shake up their world, supposedly.


Oh, ok, yeah, I suppose I'm really good at finding new foods and things like that. I always research new foods from other cultures or that have different health benefits etc. Then I make food using these ingredients and sometimes even tell other people about them. Lol. Or I take people to a new restaurant, like if there is a new Mexican restaurant or Thai restaurant or something in our area, I love to support local businesses and try new food from new cultures at the same time. So I guess that's finding new things.



> We are not discussing jungian Si here. roud:
> 
> Socionics goes further in that it fleshes out the implications Jung and his students didn't go into too much (though they do mention it, even for Si!), on how these dominant functions have an unconscious openness to their complementary.
> 
> So where it says Si can't imagine the new, Socionics fleshes out how this inability also comes with some receptiveness to the novelty of Ne, even though they can't generate it on their own much.


Well then fuck Socionics. Fuck this shit. This "receptivity" shit is just speculation. If Jung didn't say it, it's not true. Fuck this speculative garbage.



> Well lol I'm definitely lacking in lateral thinking but narrow-mindedness is something else entirely. I try to always take in and process new data so I'm more open in that sense. Thanks btw but no need to idealize too much :laughing:


I'm not idealizing, this is my honest opinion. I know I said before I find you annoying, I do, but I find most people annoying (like over 90% of people) so it's not you. Lol. It's me!



> See if reading EIE/LSI kills you more at the first link if you want.  Along with the other description of ILE/SEI there, of course.


I used this one since I can't log in there: Socionics - the16types.info - Socionics: Making Duality Work (It's weird that I could view this one without logging in xD)

OK, well, both of these descriptions are better. But in either case I kinda have the strengths of both of them. I don't really need help with anything there. I actually relate more to the SEI part than the ILE part, in terms of managing people's emotional states and being socially reserved etc.

Some stuff...

*"IL (ILE) often feels a need in new experiences and changes, lack of which can cause lethargy and a craving for empty entertainment. In such cases, he may take hasty and imprudent actions, if he is not distracted in time with an interesting activity or proposition."*

I never feel in need of new experiences and changes, as I seem to change everything anyway - I never feel the absence of it. I also don't experience "lethargy and a craving for empty entertainment", I'm never hasty or imprudent (I'm actually too cautious and careful tbh, but this can be SP too lol), and I don't need to be "distracted" with interesting activities as I'm already doing something interesting, I would find such "distractions" annoying.

Btw this is supposedly about the SEI, but sounds like it should be about the ILE: *"He is able to instill optimism in moments of depression, dispel his boredom, drag him out to see a concert or a show, and so on."* I thought the Ne ego was responsible for "doing new things!!1" like concerts or whatever. And anyway, I'm never bored so it's irrelevant to me prersonally. I cba to drag someone else to anything though, I'd just go without telling them tbh.

And this from the ILE/SEI one: *"Both of them live going with the flow, surrendering themselves to opportunity and chance."*

This is what I mean by the repulsive passivity. Just the word "surrender" makes me shudder. Ugh. There is no such thing as "chance", "chance" is an excuse people make to avoid taking responsibility for their own decisions.

But TBH reading all of this, I'm starting to doubt I'm an extravert, lol. I have this exact problem: *"SE (SEI) ... as an introvert he is prone to shyness and hesitancy. He is cautious and constrained around new people, so prefers to negotiate on an informal basis"* And many other places where I related more to the introverted types (SEI/LSI) than their duals.

Like this is totally me, about LSI: *"Despite the fact that the LF (LSI) can be a pleasant companion, capable of giving compliments and praises to someone whom he likes, he quickly grows tired of this. Then withdraws from the public, submerges into himself. He is not inconvenienced by prolonged solitude. Dispassionate by his nature, he seldom sincerely grows attached to anyone, and for this may be considered an aloof and cold man."*

And yet I relate to this a lot too: *"ET (EIE) alleviates the unnecessary suspicions of LF (LSI) ... He helps in professional sphere as well, striking up new contacts and introducing new and promising practices. With his foresight and intuition for danger and mishaps, ET (EIE) is able to forewarn LF (LSI) and divert him from making possible mistakes."*

Lol I'm actually even more confused now :crazy: :tongue:

I happened to glance at the ESE/LII one and I relate to both of them equally... Even more confusingly, I relate to both ESE and LII more than I relate to *any* of the above types... :S :laughing: Hmm... I think it might be that the Alpha Irrationals are too apathetic for me, while the Beta Rationals are too driven. I'm a bit more relaxed than the Beta Rationals but not *nearly* as apathetic as the Alpha Irrationals.



> It's not the Ni kind of passivity. I'll be curious what you think about those parts being addressed in the descriptions I linked.


It's apathy. Alphathy :crazy: :tongue:. I want a go-getter, someone who wants to take from the world, not someone who lets the world take from them.



> That sounds a bit depressive too so I don't know if type related. Ne demonstrative (of EIE brand specifically, not LIE) can have an issue with inability to choose one of too many options and they don't want more possibilities to disorient them but I don't see them bring it up in the enthusiastic seeming way you sometimes do it where you declare you don't want to get stuck. I may be misunderstanding the seemingly enthusiastic way tho'.


Yes, well, ambiguity and too many options makes me depressed - so of course it sounds depressive. 

Well, yeah, I don't want to get stuck - but I don't want to get stuck with the *wrong* option (in this case the wrong type) specifically, I would not consider it getting stuck if it were the correct option or if the type fit well.




owlet said:


> Maybe not Ignoring then! Have you had a look at Si in different positions? Haha, I think the descriptions can make very concrete aspects of Ni sound mystical, which is misleading. 'Hidden connections' to me just sounds like a focus on reading between the lines or hearing the unspoken aspect of words (which is a big part of language). Grasping intrinsic potential sounds like say if you walk into a room of people and you pick up on their various signals, the context etc. and where that could lead them, or something like that.
> What do you think of:


I've looked at all of the IEs in different positions, but I don't consistently relate to any one description. e.g. I used to relate to Si creative a lot, then I didn't, now I kinda do again, etc. Lol. Very confusing.

I'm really not good at reading between the lines, when I'm forced to do it, I always read/guess wrong. :laughing: I'm also bad at picking up signals from people, especially strangers. I can't handle people "dropping hints", I need to be able to see it to act on it. That's not to say it has to be right in front of me, but it has to be something "real", I can't act on unreal/surreal information like signals or whatever.

As for the quote, I bolded the parts I relate to:



> The individual is perfectly adept at evaluating his physical state and the quality of his sensations, but *gives priority to the external act of experiencing and interacting with the world. He gets impatient with those who stubbornly focus on harmony and equilibrium when there are things to be done in the outside world.* According to these types, the exploration of the sensations is something that should be done in private on one's own time _[lol, tbh I don't think it should be done at all]_, but *in public people should be ready to interact, get involved*, and command situations without having to weigh out everything first.


idk what command situations means tbh. But yeah, you have to be able to act immediately without weighing out situations in your head first, otherwise you will lose out. I very rarely think before I act, but preference for action over reflection is extraversion in general.


----------



## owlet

counterintuitive said:


> I've looked at all of the IEs in different positions, but I don't consistently relate to any one description. e.g. I used to relate to Si creative a lot, then I didn't, now I kinda do again, etc. Lol. Very confusing.


I can understand that - actually, I have the same problem to an extent (which is why I'm stuck between EII and LII). People (and all living things) are very fluid. However, there's usually some kind of 'core' preference for functioning, which is the most natural - the method you use first the majority of the time. If you can spend some time trying to 'catch' your thought-patterns as they naturally occur, it can be very helpful! (It's difficult to remember to do it though.)



> I'm really not good at reading between the lines, when I'm forced to do it, I always read/guess wrong. :laughing: I'm also bad at picking up signals from people, especially strangers. I can't handle people "dropping hints", I need to be able to see it to act on it. That's not to say it has to be right in front of me, but it has to be something "real", I can't act on unreal/surreal information like signals or whatever.
> 
> As for the quote, I bolded the parts I relate to:
> 
> idk what command situations means tbh. But yeah, you have to be able to act immediately without weighing out situations in your head first, otherwise you will lose out. I very rarely think before I act, but preference for action over reflection is extraversion in general.


From what you've said here, do you think you might value Se? 


> Types that value Se are much more comfortable with direct behavior aimed at making an immediate impact. This may at times be perceived as abrasive, particularly by types who do not value Se. There is usually a competitive edge to this style of group interaction, resulting in a more intense atmosphere than that of introverted sensing Si-valuing quadras. They appreciate contemplating possibilities only if they feel like they stand to gain something from it, or it has a perceived potential impact on "the real world".
> 
> Unlike Si, which is about one's subjective sensory experience (how intense or enjoyable it is), Se is about achieving an object of desire. It gives one the ability to influence, bend, and push situations and people in order to achieve such an object, rather than to enjoy the situation one is in.


(Although there can be many factors which play into not being able to read hints very well - I struggle with them myself - so I'm more going off how you seem to value action.)


----------



## counterintuitive

owlet said:


> I can understand that - actually, I have the same problem to an extent (which is why I'm stuck between EII and LII). People (and all living things) are very fluid. However, there's usually some kind of 'core' preference for functioning, which is the most natural - the method you use first the majority of the time. If you can spend some time trying to 'catch' your thought-patterns as they naturally occur, it can be very helpful! (It's difficult to remember to do it though.)


Yes, my issue appears to be not fluidity per se but an inconsistent self-perception. My self-perception changes too often to be sure of anything. I do agree there is a core/most natural pattern of cognition. I believe I'm most consciously aware of _both_ Ti and Fe, nothing else really registers. Ti and Fe cannot both be mental track within the theory. But Ti creative/Fe HA or Fe creative/Ti HA seems probable as the HA can be consciously accessed to some degree.



> From what you've said here, do you think you might value Se?


Possible, yes. I'm very confident of Ti/Fe valuing and Fi/Te devaluing, but less so about Si/Ne vs. Ni/Se.




myst91 said:


> Explain stuff in what sort of topics?


Anything, really. Lol. I'm helpless.



>


IDK how to explain it, it's easier just to say I was lying. I do it IRL too.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> Haha. Well, I can't imagine not noticing these things let alone not reacting to them


Curious - how about seeing it in other people? Do you ever get worried for their health for small reasons? 




> I struggle to focus on concrete details, yes. But I don't see temperature changes, taste, etc as concrete details. Of course they are concrete, but not details.


Interesting you wouldn't see it as details




> Sounds idiosyncratic (for your friend).


The other ILE I mentioned before also has some idiosyncratic patterns in this area, different ones. 




> So if I can feed myself just fine (hell, I'm the only person I know who drinks enough water xD), clothe myself just fine, maintain temperatures just fine, and so on - what do I need the Si ego for exactly? (not a rhetorical question)


I drink enough water too. So you are no longer the only person. 

Si helps grounding Ne thinking in general.

Comfort is also about a lot more than just eating and setting the right temperature.. but I don't care about those extra details for comfort that some other people get really fussy about. Like @lets mosey described earlier (though Si egos would take care of this inconspicuously, that example was weak Si)




> I read books and other resources on investing, think well-known names like William Bernstein and Jack (aka John) Bogle, and I follow what they say to the letter. I don't attempt to read the market (no faster way to lose money than to try to read the market and see its future potentials, lol) nor do I invest in companies individually. I only buy mutual funds, index funds specifically (lower fees). Even trained money managers rarely outperform the market (about 10% of the time), so I certainly don't believe I can. Lol.


And how about the improvement stuff in general that you find important?




owlet said:


> What would you say are the basics? I'm fairly new to socionics, so I don't know if I'm going about it the right way (just the way that makes most sense to me). Please feel free to correct my method.


Find Ego functions primarily, this may be helped by the function dichotomies. Confirm by checking for Base/dual seeking dynamics. 




> You said 'seems more' which implied a certain level of confidence to me. I apologise if I was mistaken.
> Actually, I was genuinely asking what he thought. I haven't got enough information to form any kind of real opinion - just testing out vague ideas.


No worries. Btw I see you are stuck between EII and LII, I would offer my input, you sound Fi role at best, much more Ti than Fi so LII.




counterintuitive said:


> Oh, ok, yeah, I suppose I'm really good at finding new foods and things like that. I always research new foods from other cultures or that have different health benefits etc. Then I make food using these ingredients and sometimes even tell other people about them. Lol. Or I take people to a new restaurant, like if there is a new Mexican restaurant or Thai restaurant or something in our area, I love to support local businesses and try new food from new cultures at the same time. So I guess that's finding new things.


Yeah that's an example of that. Btw, not exclusive to Ne/Si valuing. 




> Well then fuck Socionics. Fuck this shit. This "receptivity" shit is just speculation. If Jung didn't say it, it's not true. Fuck this speculative garbage.


Misunderstanding - Jung did say it and I did mention this in parentheses (that it was mentioned for Si too in the Jungian era as well), just didn't flesh it out as much as Socionics. 




> I used this one since I can't log in there: Socionics - the16types.info - Socionics: Making Duality Work (It's weird that I could view this one without logging in xD)


Afaik the articles are public. The forum threads (on the articles) should be as well, tho'... Only blogs are by default not set to public, iirc (the Ne blob blog article thingy for example).




> OK, well, both of these descriptions are better. But in either case I kinda have the strengths of both of them. I don't really need help with anything there. I actually relate more to the SEI part than the ILE part, in terms of managing people's emotional states and being socially reserved etc.


Managing emotional states? Sure I might've seen some of that from you before.




> I never feel in need of new experiences and changes, as I seem to change everything anyway - I never feel the absence of it. I also don't experience "lethargy and a craving for empty entertainment", I'm never hasty or imprudent (I'm actually too cautious and careful tbh, but this can be SP too lol), and I don't need to be "distracted" with interesting activities as I'm already doing something interesting, I would find such "distractions" annoying.


Sure, good Ne... You don't often switch between stuff?




> And this from the ILE/SEI one: *"Both of them live going with the flow, surrendering themselves to opportunity and chance."*
> 
> This is what I mean by the repulsive passivity. Just the word "surrender" makes me shudder. Ugh. There is no such thing as "chance", "chance" is an excuse people make to avoid taking responsibility for their own decisions.


Hmm ok, I don't like the going with the flow thing either. I attribute that both to Rationality and Se/Ni valuing in my case.




> Like this is totally me, about LSI: "Despite the fact that the LF (LSI) can be a pleasant companion, capable of giving compliments and praises to someone whom he likes, he quickly grows tired of this. Then withdraws from the public, submerges into himself. He is not inconvenienced by prolonged solitude. Dispassionate by his nature, he seldom sincerely grows attached to anyone, and for this may be considered an aloof and cold man."


The dispassionateness too?




> And yet I relate to this a lot too: *"ET (EIE) alleviates the unnecessary suspicions of LF (LSI) ... He helps in professional sphere as well, striking up new contacts and introducing new and promising practices. With his foresight and intuition for danger and mishaps, ET (EIE) is able to forewarn LF (LSI) and divert him from making possible mistakes."*


Good Intuition again with some Extraversion.




> Lol I'm actually even more confused now :crazy: :tongue:
> 
> I happened to glance at the ESE/LII one and I relate to both of them equally... Even more confusingly, I relate to both ESE and LII more than I relate to *any* of the above types... :S :laughing: Hmm... I think it might be that the Alpha Irrationals are too apathetic for me, while the Beta Rationals are too driven. I'm a bit more relaxed than the Beta Rationals but not *nearly* as apathetic as the Alpha Irrationals.


Well, you are a bit too extraverted for LII or otherwise could go with that for you. 




> It's apathy. Alphathy :crazy: :tongue:. I want a go-getter, someone who wants to take from the world, not someone who lets the world take from them.


Hmm, I don't see ILE as apathetic at all. Si-bases yes, a bit, from my pov anyway... especially SLI. SEI with strong enough Fe is ok.




> Yes, well, ambiguity and too many options makes me depressed - so of course it sounds depressive.
> 
> Well, yeah, I don't want to get stuck - but I don't want to get stuck with the *wrong* option (in this case the wrong type) specifically, I would not consider it getting stuck if it were the correct option or if the type fit well.


Gotcha. So when you say things like you've managed to stick to the typing for 96 hours... that's because doubt sets in but it's not fun at all to run around with the options?




> I've looked at all of the IEs in different positions, but I don't consistently relate to any one description. e.g. I used to relate to Si creative a lot, then I didn't, now I kinda do again, etc. Lol. Very confusing.


Yeah your self-perception is weird how it changes. 

I don't wanna say EIE from just that tho'. You need to show more Ni :tongue:

Actually, would you describe how you relate to Ni in general, at least at this moment of seeing yourself? :laughing:




> According to these types, the exploration of the sensations is something that should be done in private on one's own time [lol, tbh I don't think it should be done at all]


When you enjoy your grocery shopping, I would see that as exploration of sensations unless I misunderstood you about that. 




> idk what command situations means tbh. But yeah, you have to be able to act immediately without weighing out situations in your head first, otherwise you will lose out. I very rarely think before I act, but preference for action over reflection is extraversion in general.


Commanding situations... means exactly what it says, getting people to do things. Is that still unclear? 

Btw I relate to that whole quote exactly as written, except that I sometimes I do weigh out some things first. Otherwise, this quote was Se leading :laughing:




owlet said:


> If you can spend some time trying to 'catch' your thought-patterns as they naturally occur, it can be very helpful! (It's difficult to remember to do it though.)


I do it just when I happen to naturally introspect for a second here or there. That over time did lead to a lot of observations.




> (Although there can be many factors which play into not being able to read hints very well - I struggle with them myself - so I'm more going off how you seem to value action.)


Valuing action - on this general level you put it - just means the person is not strongly introverted. With the quote specifically, of course it does explicitly point out Se valuing. And yes, @counterintuitive did claim Si shouldn't be focused on at all, which can be constructed as Se valuing but I'm not enough clear on that atm.


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> Curious - how about seeing it in other people? Do you ever get worried for their health for small reasons?


No, obviously I can tell if others are sick and I'm glad to help them. But I don't worry about their health or my own health. Worrying won't help them.



> I drink enough water too. So you are no longer the only person.


Ah, that's good. I know a lot of people who don't, and they have chronic headaches and keep taking painkillers. I'm like, uh, have you considered drinking something other than coffee and Coke? Lol.



> Si helps grounding Ne thinking in general.


Well, we have already discussed this but I'm plenty grounded, in the sense of being pragmatic. I'm realistic at least WRT SP/SO stuff, which is the vast majority of what I do. But again this isn't provable.



> And how about the improvement stuff in general that you find important?


I am able to think up ideas and filter on the most realistic ones for implementation in reality. I don't believe in change for the sake of change (that's useless) so I make sure they are actually improvements (positive change) and that they are actually implementable in reality.



> Misunderstanding - Jung did say it and I did mention this in parentheses (that it was mentioned for Si too in the Jungian era as well), just didn't flesh it out as much as Socionics.


OK. Well then fuck Jung, I guess.



> Afaik the articles are public. The forum threads (on the articles) should be as well, tho'... Only blogs are by default not set to public, iirc (the Ne blob blog article thingy for example).


Idk, when I clicked that link it prompted me to log in.



> Sure, good Ne... You don't often switch between stuff?


I do sometimes switch between tasks, sure. But I don't see these as "distractions" and I don't need to be "distracted" with interesting activities as I'm *already* doing something interesting, I don't need someone else to "distract" me.



> Hmm ok, I don't like the going with the flow thing either. I attribute that both to Rationality and Se/Ni valuing in my case.


Yeah that going with the flow, accepting life circumstances, "chance" and "fate", etc. is just bullshit. Could be either in my case.



> The dispassionateness too?


Yeah, I took the sentence (_"Dispassionate by his nature, he seldom sincerely grows attached to anyone, and for this may be considered an aloof and cold man."_) as a whole.



> Hmm, I don't see ILE as apathetic at all. Si-bases yes, a bit, from my pov anyway... especially SLI. SEI with strong enough Fe is ok.


The quote I was referencing was _"Both of them [referring to ILE and SEI] live going with the flow, surrendering themselves to opportunity and chance."_ That's what I mean by apathy, the going with the flow and "chance" BS. Yeah, the creative/contact subtype would be less inert.



> Gotcha. So when you say things like you've managed to stick to the typing for 96 hours... that's because doubt sets in but it's not fun at all to run around with the options?


The doubt sucks tbh. Sometimes it's fun to explore options, but especially in IRL stuff, the doubt really sucks. With type it also sucks, but if the type 'fit' then I wouldn't have (as much ) doubt.



> Yeah your self-perception is weird how it changes.
> 
> I don't wanna say EIE from just that tho'. You need to show more Ni :tongue:
> 
> Actually, would you describe how you relate to Ni in general, at least at this moment of seeing yourself? :laughing:


Lol. Idk about Ni. I guess... I see patterns in things, even though I don't want to see them. I see similarities between different things too. I can reconcile inconsistencies very well, I'm able to reconcile anything with anything else and somehow still make it make sense. I can guess probable outcomes of things with shocking accuracy, even though I don't trust myself to do this at all, I later find out my predictions were correct.



> When you enjoy your grocery shopping, I would see that as exploration of sensations unless I misunderstood you about that.


Oh, huh, I didn't think of it that way. Interesting.



> Commanding situations... means exactly what it says, getting people to do things. Is that still unclear?


Oh, I don't see that as commanding though. I do that all the time :laughing:



> I do it just when I happen to naturally introspect for a second here or there. That over time did lead to a lot of observations.


Ok I guess I can try that. I don't really introspect unless forced though, I find it very stressful lol.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> Ah, that's good. I know a lot of people who don't, and they have chronic headaches and keep taking painkillers. I'm like, uh, have you considered drinking something other than coffee and Coke? Lol.


It's not always that simple. But sure, drinking only coffee/coke all day is not the most healthy.




> I am able to think up ideas and filter on the most realistic ones for implementation in reality. I don't believe in change for the sake of change (that's useless) so I make sure they are actually improvements (positive change) and that they are actually implementable in reality.


So how does this not have anything to do with seeing potential? (Either with Ne in ego or in ID)




> OK. Well then fuck Jung, I guess.


Uh it's like a basic tenet of the whole function based typology, the dynamics between the dominant and the inferior function.




> Yeah that going with the flow, accepting life circumstances, "chance" and "fate", etc. is just bullshit. Could be either in my case.


I do think it's bs too, heh.




> Yeah, I took the sentence (_"Dispassionate by his nature, he seldom sincerely grows attached to anyone, and for this may be considered an aloof and cold man."_) as a whole.


What do you mean by dispassionate though?




> The quote I was referencing was _"Both of them [referring to ILE and SEI] live going with the flow, surrendering themselves to opportunity and chance."_ That's what I mean by apathy, the going with the flow and "chance" BS. Yeah, the creative/contact subtype would be less inert.


You don't sound very Irrational here :dry:

Creative subtype of Irrational type would of course also be less Irrational.




> Lol. Idk about Ni. I guess... I see patterns in things, even though I don't want to see them. I see similarities between different things too. I can reconcile inconsistencies very well, I'm able to reconcile anything with anything else and somehow still make it make sense. I can guess probable outcomes of things with shocking accuracy, even though I don't trust myself to do this at all, I later find out my predictions were correct.


Reconciling inconsistencies in what way, why do you see this as Ni over Ne?

Guessing at probable outcomes, do you prefer to focus on one or not?




> Oh, huh, I didn't think of it that way. Interesting.


Well I don't know what exactly you enjoy about grocery shopping unless you describe it more but typically it would be Si stuff.


Oh btw example of refined Si helping or trying to help IxE dual (IEE, anyway): 

_ SLI - What's wrong?
IEE - I dunno. I'm just in a pissy mood.
SLI - Here -- have some of this [cinnamon toast]
IEE - No, thanks.
SLI - Okay.
IEE - Okay, I'll have some [reaches for toast]
SLI - No, not like that. Eat it upside-down, so the good part gets right on your tongue.
IEE - [bites toast upside-down] Like this?
SLI - Yeah. Wasn't that good? You feel better now? _

(From SLI-IEE conversations from irl)


----------



## owlet

counterintuitive said:


> Yes, my issue appears to be not fluidity per se but an inconsistent self-perception. My self-perception changes too often to be sure of anything. I do agree there is a core/most natural pattern of cognition. I believe I'm most consciously aware of _both_ Ti and Fe, nothing else really registers. Ti and Fe cannot both be mental track within the theory. But Ti creative/Fe HA or Fe creative/Ti HA seems probable as the HA can be consciously accessed to some degree.


Oh, I see!In that case, the best thing I think you could do is try to focus on introspecting for a while without looking at the IEs, so you're removing that mental bias towards how you think. Then when you've got more data to work with (hopefully some consistency too) you could come back to the IEs and work from your self-knowledge.



> Possible, yes. I'm very confident of Ti/Fe valuing and Fi/Te devaluing, but less so about Si/Ne vs. Ni/Se.


Ah, okay. I tend to find valued Se is quite obvious in people when you're there in person, but not so much online.. Remember that with socionics it's not so much about the functional pairs, as it is with JCF/MBTI, but just which you value.
Actually, there was an interesting thing on Wikisocion about attitudes towards the IEs:


> When a person is "using" an element he naturally goes into a corresponding state of mind, which is reflected in his body language and vocabulary, and tends to have a similar effect on the people around him, who will react based on which function that element occupies in their Model A, with interest (Ego), amusement (Super-Id), boredom (Id), or irritation (Super-Ego), etc.





myst91 said:


> Find Ego functions primarily, this may be helped by the function dichotomies. Confirm by checking for Base/dual seeking dynamics.
> 
> No worries. Btw I see you are stuck between EII and LII, I would offer my input, you sound Fi role at best, much more Ti than Fi so LII.


So Ego are the two most valued, right? (One rational and one irrational i.e. for LII Ti and Ne.) How would you check for Base/dual seeking dynamics?

Thank you for the input! (I did a questionnaire a while back and it seemed to just make everyone confused and annoyed.)
Why would you say Fi is less valued than Ti? Any particular indicators?



> I do it just when I happen to naturally introspect for a second here or there. That over time did lead to a lot of observations.
> 
> Valuing action - on this general level you put it - just means the person is not strongly introverted. With the quote specifically, of course it does explicitly point out Se valuing. And yes, @*counterintuitive* did claim Si shouldn't be focused on at all, which can be constructed as Se valuing but I'm not enough clear on that atm.


I think some people are more inclined to naturally introspect than others, so for some it might end up having to be a more conscious thing. Still, it is better if it's natural!

Well, from my impression of, for example, Ne that extroverted function isn't as inclined to action as the others, so that's less likely. But as you say, I don't think there's enough information to go on at the moment.


----------



## counterintuitive

myst91 said:


> It's not always that simple. But sure, drinking only coffee/coke all day is not the most healthy.


Yes, of course there can be lots of other reasons someone has headaches. It depends on other factors like what the person says. I try to gently remind some of my coworkers to drink water, lol, but only the ones who have noticed I drink a lot of water and asked me to remind them to do the same. I would not help them if they didn't ask. 



> So how does this not have anything to do with seeing potential? (Either with Ne in ego or in ID)


I'm checking which ideas are realistic, not which have potential.



> Uh it's like a basic tenet of the whole function based typology, the dynamics between the dominant and the inferior function.


If it's part of type theory that I'm supposed to seek someone else to help me with basic life tasks that I've been easily doing on my own for 10 years, then fuck type theory.



> What do you mean by dispassionate though?


Relatively unemotional and impartial. My emotional state being a blank/null value is a part of this.



> Reconciling inconsistencies in what way, why do you see this as Ni over Ne?


Well, just this morning my dad claimed he is an atheist and then in the next sentence said "But I don't believe in the evolution dogma like most atheists. God created the earth." If you believe there was a deity that created the earth, then you must believe there is some kind of deity, so by definition you are not an atheist. So I asked my dad how he reconciles these.

My dad also goes to the doctor regularly but attempted to stop me from going for my entire childhood because "It's immoral" - this is another inconsistency that I've challenged him on.

I can go on like this for pages. Of course, the people I talk to never acknowledge these inconsistencies in their views, and I don't consider it my responsibility to get them to think straight (I'm not a babysitter, thanks).

In my own views, I'm always checking for and reconciling inconsistencies. I can't think of any examples though. I recently left my religion because of irreconcilable inconsistencies within itself and with reality.

Idk if it's Ni or Ne. I just tried to explain how I see Ni, if it's not Ni then obviously I don't have very conscious Ni.



> Guessing at probable outcomes, do you prefer to focus on one or not?


Prefer to focus on one or just a few if I could. But I rarely can.



> Well I don't know what exactly you enjoy about grocery shopping unless you describe it more but typically it would be Si stuff.


It's mostly the application of my knowledge about nutrition. Making decisions in order to buy the correct foods. It's like a game with several variables that need to be optimized.



> Oh btw example of refined Si helping or trying to help IxE dual (IEE, anyway):
> 
> _ SLI - What's wrong?
> IEE - I dunno. I'm just in a pissy mood.
> SLI - Here -- have some of this [cinnamon toast]
> IEE - No, thanks.
> SLI - Okay.
> IEE - Okay, I'll have some [reaches for toast]
> SLI - No, not like that. Eat it upside-down, so the good part gets right on your tongue.
> IEE - [bites toast upside-down] Like this?
> SLI - Yeah. Wasn't that good? You feel better now? _
> 
> (From SLI-IEE conversations from irl)


This is *refined* Si?! :laughing:

If I'm upset for no reason, _obviously_ the first thing I do is drink water, then eat some food, then take a nap - waiting 20-30 minutes between each step to see if it helps. But I'm rarely upset for no reason, probably because I eat and drink throughout the day anyway.

If I'm upset for a reason, then I fix the root problem.

If I were the SLI, I'd be focusing on helping the IEE actually solve the problem, not on micromanaging which side of the toast is up or down. Lol.

If I were the IEE, I wouldn't have answered "What's wrong?" and I would have told the SLI to shove the toast up his ass if he persisted. _No one_ tells me what to eat or how to eat it.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

owlet said:


> If you can spend some time trying to 'catch' your thought-patterns as they naturally occur, it can be very helpful! (It's difficult to remember to do it though.)


Just want to chime in and say - this is fantastic advice. It is what proved to me that I'm not a Ti type way back when, and is how I identified Ni as my dominant function. Recognizing your own behaviors is a wonderful tool for self discovery.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Also, am I the only one that notes counter is quite comfortable in confidently asserting his own opinions and crushing the opinions of those he thinks are wrong? He may not always know his own opinion on some things, but when he does it is put forward mightily. Makes me think Se in Ego rather than Ne, or at least Decisive Quadra.


----------



## counterintuitive

owlet said:


> Oh, I see!In that case, the best thing I think you could do is try to focus on introspecting for a while without looking at the IEs, so you're removing that mental bias towards how you think. Then when you've got more data to work with (hopefully some consistency too) you could come back to the IEs and work from your self-knowledge.


^



Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Just want to chime in and say - this is fantastic advice. It is what proved to me that I'm not a Ti type way back when, and is how I identified Ni as my dominant function. Recognizing your own behaviors is a wonderful tool for self discovery.


This isn't news to me, I've been trying to do this for the past 5 years...

Most of the time, if I try to introspect deeply, I end up on the verge of a panic attack or actually having a panic attack.

On top of this, I have brain fog almost all the time which makes any type of conscious thinking quite difficult. But I already talked about this at length, cba to say more.

Sometimes I do have more conscious and clear thoughts, but if I try to focus on one thought, it just slips away - so I can't get a good look or remember it at all.

After many years of attempted introspection, I'm very confident I'm a Ti and Fe valuer and use both relatively consciously (suggesting xEI or xLE) - but I cannot figure out any more on my own. That's why I'm here.



owlet said:


> Remember that with socionics it's not so much about the functional pairs, as it is with JCF/MBTI, but just which you value.


If you value Si, then you necessarily value Ne, and vice versa. If you value Ni, then you necessarily value Se, and vice versa. Same for Ti/Fe and Fi/Te. So it is still about the functional pairs in Socionics.


ETA



Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Also, am I the only one that notes counter is quite comfortable in confidently asserting his own opinions and crushing the opinions of those he thinks are wrong? He may not always know his own opinion on some things, but when he does it is put forward mightily. Makes me think Se in Ego rather than Ne, or at least Decisive Quadra.


I don't "crush" others' opinions - I simply expect other people to defend (via argument) their viewpoints / what they said. I argue back, and I expect others to either defend their viewpoint or concede they were wrong. Most people I know IRL are incapable of this or else unwilling to even try.

Aside from that, there's an NTR part: I was raised in a weird thought-bubble/echo chamber where the strangest assumptions were taken as unquestionable, "common sense" truths. I could not argue back outwardly because "It's just common sense! Everyone knows that! What are you, an idiot?" So I developed a mental practice of arguing back internally. Questioning every assumption that others around me said were "just common sense". I did this out of necessity. To stay sane. I still do it reflexively, almost obsessively. I panic and have cold sweats sometimes when someone makes claims that contradict one another. I have a hard time letting such claims and people's assumptions slide; even if they are sound assumptions, I need an explanation for them.

I don't disagree with Se in ego btw.


----------



## owlet

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Just want to chime in and say - this is fantastic advice. It is what proved to me that I'm not a Ti type way back when, and is how I identified Ni as my dominant function. Recognizing your own behaviors is a wonderful tool for self discovery.


It's the only way I really know how, so I'm glad it's a decent one!



Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Also, am I the only one that notes counter is quite comfortable in confidently asserting his own opinions and crushing the opinions of those he thinks are wrong? He may not always know his own opinion on some things, but when he does it is put forward mightily. Makes me think Se in Ego rather than Ne, or at least Decisive Quadra.


No, I noticed that too. It does seem like Se valuing, I'm just hesitant to stand firmly on that basis.




counterintuitive said:


> ^
> This isn't news to me, I've been trying to do this for the past 5 years...
> 
> Most of the time, if I try to introspect deeply, I end up on the verge of a panic attack or actually having a panic attack.
> 
> On top of this, I have brain fog almost all the time which makes any type of conscious thinking quite difficult. But I already talked about this at length, cba to say more.
> 
> Sometimes I do have more conscious and clear thoughts, but if I try to focus on one thought, it just slips away - so I can't get a good look or remember it at all.
> 
> After many years of attempted introspection, I'm very confident I'm a Ti and Fe valuer and use both relatively consciously (suggesting xEI or xLE) - but I cannot figure out any more on my own. That's why I'm here.


Ah, that's understandable. My SLE friend has the same problem, actually (I was trying to talk through some of her stress with her and she said she had to stop looking inwards because it was making her very anxious).
My opinion (and it's only a light opinion at this point) is that you seem to value Se.




> If you value Si, then you necessarily value Ne, and vice versa. If you value Ni, then you necessarily value Se, and vice versa. Same for Ti/Fe and Fi/Te. So it is still about the functional pairs in Socionics.


True, although there's a bit less emphasis on the functional pairs (and while, say, Fi might be in the Ego block, Te will be in the Super-Id block, so it's a bit of a different kind of relationship).


----------



## counterintuitive

owlet said:


> No, I noticed that too. It does seem like Se valuing, I'm just hesitant to stand firmly on that basis.


Hm, interesting. I didn't realize intellectual honesty was Se valuing. But that would explain a lot of lying, slippery Ne types I know. They can't stay on-topic in an argument, they keep making off-topic claims to try to divert attention from their dishonesty.



> Ah, that's understandable. My SLE friend has the same problem, actually (I was trying to talk through some of her stress with her and she said she had to stop looking inwards because it was making her very anxious).
> My opinion (and it's only a light opinion at this point) is that you seem to value Se.


Interesting. I used to go to therapy and it wasn't helping at all, it made things worse because my fucking therapist wouldn't believe anything I said. Just like everyone else.



> True, although there's a bit less emphasis on the functional pairs (and while, say, Fi might be in the Ego block, Te will be in the Super-Id block, so it's a bit of a different kind of relationship).


Right, so the function pairs exist in Socionics too. 

I'm well aware of the blocks, see my signature, I made that image. I'm not an idiot.


ETA

@Fenix Wulfheart @owlet



Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Also, am I the only one that notes counter is quite comfortable in confidently asserting his own opinions and crushing the opinions of those he thinks are wrong? He may not always know his own opinion on some things, but when he does it is put forward mightily. Makes me think Se in Ego rather than Ne, or at least Decisive Quadra.


I suppose you should define what you mean by _"crushing the opinions of those he thinks are wrong"_ here.

What is being "crushed" here exactly?

And who is "wrong" here? Given that I have no opinion on my type atm, it's not possible for someone to hold a different opinion from me.

You mean crushed, like technical discussion was crushed out of the Beta quadra hangout thread? Because I didn't do that, I actually left the thread after that point.


----------



## Immolate

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Also, am I the only one that notes counter is quite comfortable in confidently asserting his own opinions and crushing the opinions of those he thinks are wrong? He may not always know his own opinion on some things, but when he does it is put forward mightily. Makes me think Se in Ego rather than Ne, or at least Decisive Quadra.





owlet said:


> No, I noticed that too. It does seem like Se valuing, I'm just hesitant to stand firmly on that basis.


I don't seem to get the same "crush" or "might" that you guys do. I don't think reactivity is necessarily Se, although that's not to say Se ego is out of the picture for him.


----------



## counterintuitive

I think I'm just going to drop this. I sense this is about to escalate into another argument and I'm going to end it before that point. Feel free to keep discussing my type if you want, but I don't really care anymore tbh. There's no practical benefit to knowing my type. I was much happier 5-6 years ago before I found out about typology. I'm just going to go back to my normal typology-free life.

Thanks all. Bye.


----------



## owlet

lets mosey said:


> I don't seem to get the same "crush" or "might" that you guys do. I don't think reactivity is necessarily Se, although that's not to say Se ego is out of the picture for him.


It's not 'crush' or 'might' (for me), but a sort of force. Something directional - almost taking hold of the conversation and pushing out certain parts with definitiveness. I said I wouldn't stand firmly on that, though. It's just a vague idea.


----------



## Immolate

counterintuitive said:


> I think I'm just going to drop this. I sense this is about to escalate into another argument and I'm going to end it before that point. Feel free to keep discussing my type if you want, but I don't really care anymore tbh. There's no practical benefit to knowing my type. I was much happier 5-6 years ago before I found out about typology. I'm just going to go back to my normal typology-free life.
> 
> Thanks all. Bye.


Not my intention to offend you or escalate the discussion. 

Best of luck.


----------



## owlet

counterintuitive said:


> I think I'm just going to drop this. I sense this is about to escalate into another argument and I'm going to end it before that point. Feel free to keep discussing my type if you want, but I don't really care anymore tbh. There's no practical benefit to knowing my type. I was much happier 5-6 years ago before I found out about typology. I'm just going to go back to my normal typology-free life.
> 
> Thanks all. Bye.


I'm sorry if something I said upset you, or put you off. I wasn't feeling an argument about to happen, but then arguments can appear from nowhere sometimes. I won't reply to your last post unless you particularly want me to, in case it would be unpleasant for me to do so.


----------



## counterintuitive

I was not going to respond again but I have to address these accusations.



owlet said:


> It's not 'crush' or 'might' (for me), but a sort of force. Something directional - almost taking hold of the conversation and pushing out certain parts with definitiveness. I said I wouldn't stand firmly on that, though. It's just a vague idea.


I argue against bullshit with definitiveness. That's called intellectual honesty.

If you cannot argue back, that doesn't mean I "crushed" your viewpoint; it only means that you were unable or unwilling to defend your viewpoint. That doesn't mean I used "force" or pushed you out or whatever. That means *you* were unable to defend what you said. Not my problem.

Also, this is my thread, of course I'm going to take hold of the conversation. I've had several type threads locked because I didn't. If you want a fluff thread, then go somewhere else. I didn't ask for your input, nor am I holding you here.


----------



## Immolate

counterintuitive said:


> I was not going to respond again but I have to address these accusations.
> 
> 
> 
> owlet said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 'crush' or 'might' (for me), but a sort of force. Something directional - almost taking hold of the conversation and pushing out certain parts with definitiveness. I said I wouldn't stand firmly on that, though. It's just a vague idea.
> 
> 
> 
> I argue against bullshit with definitiveness. That's called intellectual honesty.
> 
> If you cannot argue back, that doesn't mean I "crushed" your viewpoint; it only means that you were unable or unwilling to defend your viewpoint. That doesn't mean I used "force" or pushed you out or whatever. That means *you* were unable to defend what you said. Not my problem.
> 
> Also, this is my thread, of course I'm going to take hold of the conversation. I've had several type threads locked because I didn't. If you want a fluff thread, then go somewhere else. I didn't ask for your input, nor am I holding you here.
Click to expand...

You're speaking to someone who is most likely Se PoLR.

I can't take posts like this seriously.


----------



## counterintuitive

lets mosey said:


> You're speaking to someone who is most likely Se PoLR.
> 
> I can't take posts like this seriously.


Then don't. I didn't ask for your input either lol, I'm not forcing you to keep posting here. You can leave any time.


----------



## owlet

counterintuitive said:


> I was not going to respond again but I have to address these accusations.
> 
> I argue against bullshit with definitiveness. That's called intellectual honesty.
> 
> If you cannot argue back, that doesn't mean I "crushed" your viewpoint; it only means that you were unable or unwilling to defend your viewpoint. That doesn't mean I used "force" or pushed you out or whatever. That means *you* were unable to defend what you said. Not my problem.
> 
> Also, this is my thread, of course I'm going to take hold of the conversation. I've had several type threads locked because I didn't. If you want a fluff thread, then go somewhere else. I didn't ask for your input, nor am I holding you here.


They aren't accusations - I'm not saying you're being overly forceful or pushing me out (and I explicitly said it wasn't about 'crushing'). I also didn't say I had any problem with how you discussed things. I was only pointing out something I noticed that I didn't think was a negative trait at all. It's admirable to be able to take control of things.
I think there's been a misunderstanding somewhere. I'm just not quite sure where.


----------



## counterintuitive

owlet said:


> They aren't accusations - I'm not saying you're being overly forceful or pushing me out (and I explicitly said it wasn't about 'crushing'). I also didn't say I had any problem with how you discussed things. I was only pointing out something I noticed that I didn't think was a negative trait at all. It's admirable to be able to take control of things.
> I think there's been a misunderstanding somewhere. I'm just not quite sure where.


The part I read as an accusation was:



owlet said:


> taking hold of the conversation and pushing out certain parts with definitiveness.


Because I'm not "pushing out" anything. I'm simply arguing against what people write and expecting them to likewise argue back. If you cannot argue back, that doesn't mean I "pushed" you out; it only means that you were unable or unwilling to defend your viewpoint.

Yes, the "crush" phrasing was Fenix's, I should have been clearer about that.

_"It's admirable to be able to take control of things."_ - Not to me, it's not. Lol.


----------



## Immolate

counterintuitive said:


> Then don't. I didn't ask for your input either lol, I'm not forcing you to keep posting here. You can leave any time.


I normally overlook these moments because you've never felt abrasive to me and I enjoy your point of view, but you're right to suggest I should step out this time.


----------



## owlet

counterintuitive said:


> The part I read as an accusation was:
> 
> Because I'm not "pushing out" anything. I'm simply arguing against what people write and expecting them to likewise argue back. If you cannot argue back, that doesn't mean I "pushed" you out; it only means that you were unable or unwilling to defend your viewpoint.
> 
> Yes, the "crush" phrasing was Fenix's, I should have been clearer about that.
> 
> _"It's admirable to be able to take control of things."_ - Not to me, it's not. Lol.


Oh, I meant that you reject things that you don't think work very firmly - so if the text is made up of blocks, you push the block you don't think works out. If I felt pushed out, I'd just leave. I also said my ideas were vague so I was attempting to explore them and see what worked for you, rather than offer something very concrete (I mean, I haven't really talked to you much).
Well, I think it's an admirable trait for me.

I don't think I'll post here again. Sorry if I upset you, I didn't mean to.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

counterintuitive said:


> Hm, interesting. I didn't realize intellectual honesty was Se valuing. But that would explain a lot of lying, slippery Ne types I know. They can't stay on-topic in an argument, they keep making off-topic claims to try to divert attention from their dishonesty.


Se isn't about honesty, its about having things your way. Se can be slippery if that is the method to accomplish something, but it isn't preferred. Also, Ne isn't necessarily dishonest just by introducing new elements like that - it probably serves as evidence to an Ne way of thinking, full of connections. 

However, the MANNER in which you call people on their intellectual dishonesty strikes me as very Se. It is application of force, which is diluted by the internet.

Also, I think Ti is most concerned with intellectual honesty, due its nature as static and rational.



counterintuitive said:


> I suppose you should define what you mean by _"crushing the opinions of those he thinks are wrong"_ here.
> 
> What is being "crushed" here exactly?
> 
> And who is "wrong" here? Given that I have no opinion on my type atm, it's not possible for someone to hold a different opinion from me.
> 
> You mean crushed, like technical discussion was crushed out of the Beta quadra hangout thread? Because I didn't do that, I actually left the thread after that point.


No, not at all like that. Its your manner in dismissing things, and your leaps into action. Like, as soon as you regard a piece of data as useless or inapplicable you completely dismiss it, forcefully. Like you earlier saying "Fuck Jung", and then dismissing it. Or, as I recall, a while back when someone was typing you they said something totally off of what everyone else was saying and you exploded at them (because, you said, that it was frustrating that we couldn't "just figure out your type already" or something to that effect), there was an argument, they got mad back, and as I recall the thread was shut down at your request. This was all decisive action in the moment by you, which struck me as Se valuing if not Se Ego. The fact that it also did not bother me, but it clearly bothered others, showed that is was probably strong Se - because assuming I am typed right, I am Se seeking, so it would make sense that you don't bother me and I like you anyway even when you do that. I can only recall being frustrated at you once, despite having read most of your threads. (The time I argued with briefly in Beta, for like three posts or something)


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

owlet said:


> It's not 'crush' or 'might' (for me), but a sort of force. Something directional - almost taking hold of the conversation and pushing out certain parts with definitiveness. I said I wouldn't stand firmly on that, though. It's just a vague idea.


Yeah. That's the same sort of force that I do that bothers my EII friend, come to think of it. Its a drive to move the conversation along, like holding the steering wheel and changing the direction back on course for the vision of where it is 'supposed' to be going.


----------



## counterintuitive

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Yeah. That's the same sort of force that I do that bothers my EII friend, come to think of it. Its a drive to move the conversation along, like holding the steering wheel and changing the direction back on course for the vision of where it is 'supposed' to be going.


Ah, I definitely do this too. I don't appreciate the dishonest maneuvering / goalpost-moving like in the Beta thread.


----------



## Captain Mclain

counterintuitive said:


> Ah, I definitely do this too. I don't appreciate the dishonest maneuvering / goalpost-moving like in the Beta thread.


what is this exactly?


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

counterintuitive said:


> Ah, I definitely do this too. I don't appreciate the dishonest maneuvering / goalpost-moving like in the Beta thread.


Yes. And it is that same force you just took with both Mosey and Owlet. Telling people to leave your thread is hard boundary setting, forceful in the sense of taking charge and delivering an ultimatum. This sort of behavior is Se. You don't seem stressed by doing this, so provided you are conscious of it we can say Se is conscious for you, and I'd hazard a guess the strength is 2D or better. Probably 3D or better, but not too sure.


----------



## counterintuitive

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Se isn't about honesty, its about having things your way. Se can be slippery if that is the method to accomplish something, but it isn't preferred. Also, Ne isn't necessarily dishonest just by introducing new elements like that - it probably serves as evidence to an Ne way of thinking, full of connections.
> 
> However, the MANNER in which you call people on their intellectual dishonesty strikes me as very Se. It is application of force, which is diluted by the internet.
> 
> Also, I think Ti is most concerned with intellectual honesty, due its nature as static and rational.


I'm kinda impressed I come off like that over the internet, lol, irl I'm honestly terrified of being attacked as it's nearly happened several times so I basically don't say anything.

"having things your way" - what does this mean? Most of the time, I don't know what is "my way" in that I don't know what I want, like right now lol, so I end up 



> No, not at all like that. Its your manner in dismissing things, and your leaps into action. Like, as soon as you regard a piece of data as useless or inapplicable you completely dismiss it, forcefully. Like you earlier saying "Fuck Jung", and then dismissing it.


See, this is what I call intellectual dishonesty right here. I'm not "dismissing" these things, I'm simply arguing against them and you are not able to argue back. This is a reflection on you, not me.

If you argue back, as Myst does, I'll engage you just as I engage her.

As for "fuck Jung", clearly that was not serious, or I would have left this forum already 



> Or, as I recall, a while back when someone was typing you they said something totally off of what everyone else was saying and you exploded at them (because, you said, that it was frustrating that we couldn't "just figure out your type already" or something to that effect), there was an argument, they got mad back, and as I recall the thread was shut down at your request. This was all decisive action in the moment by you, which struck me as Se valuing if not Se Ego. The fact that it also did not bother me, but it clearly bothered others, showed that is was probably strong Se - because assuming I am typed right, I am Se seeking, so it would make sense that you don't bother me and I like you anyway even when you do that. I can only recall being frustrated at you once, despite having read most of your threads. (The time I argued with briefly in Beta, for like three posts or something)


I got Jeremy thrown out of my thread, yes, but he's a troll. I don't remember the rest of that so can't comment.

Glad you like me, because I hate myself.

Heh, I'm frustrated with you most of the time, with your dynamic goalpost-moving bullshit. If you are my dual, I might as well just slit my wrists right now (don't worry this is exaggeration ).


----------



## counterintuitive

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Yes. And it is that same force you just took with both Mosey and Owlet. Telling people to leave your thread is hard boundary setting, forceful in the sense of taking charge and delivering an ultimatum. This sort of behavior is Se. You don't seem stressed by doing this, so provided you are conscious of it we can say Se is conscious for you, and I'd hazard a guess the strength is 2D or better. Probably 3D or better, but not too sure.


OK, no, I have to correct the record here. I did not tell them to leave the thread. I simply told them they are free to leave. They left of their own volition and are welcome back if they so choose.

I'm definitely stressed by doing this though, I'd much prefer a harmonious environment, but that's not possible when people make accusations and are intellectually dishonest.

Also, I have to add, YOU were the goalpost-mover in the Beta thread. So I guess you must not value Se.


----------



## Immolate

counterintuitive said:


> *I'm definitely stressed by doing this though*, I'd much prefer a harmonious environment, but that's not possible when people make accusations and are intellectually dishonest.


There's no need for this response. I just don't think there's a point in participating.


----------



## counterintuitive

lets mosey said:


> There's no need for this response. I just don't think there's a point in participating.


Then again I have to ask why you are continuing to participate if there is no point.

Btw, my comment about the intellectual dishonesty isn't aimed at you.


----------



## Immolate

counterintuitive said:


> Then again I have to ask why you are continuing to participate if there is no point.


I only meant to alleviate your stress. There's no reason you should feel bad about my leaving, if that's what you were expressing.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Not necessarily. Goalpost moving is about changing the criteria being used while still discussing the thing, yes? That is intrinsically Dynamic, so all that says about me is that I am not a Static type. ALSO, by the by, to state a few things here that I feel need to be said.

#1 : There is absolutely nothing wrong with "shifting goalposts". The criteria of judgment must change whenever the thing BEING judged has changed, which happens all the time when discussing opinions and theoretical constructs. Particularly with opinions.
#2 : I, personally, will never "stick to one goalpost" or some bullshit like that because that makes no sense to me, personally. How can I stick to the one goalpost doggedly when the field just flip flopped around? I need new posts for new terrain. The goal is part of the journey. If you cant handle this, tell me so, and I will not debate with you. But there is no way I will do that sort of debating that you describe.
#3 : When you tell someone that their idea has no merit, which you intrinsically are doing when you dismiss things in that manner, then you are being forceful. Whether they choose to exert force BACK is of course variable, but not all people feel it is worth the stress to do such a thing because not all people are comfortable/capable of that kind of forcefullness.
#4 : When you tell someone they are free to leave, part of what you are saying is that you are annoyed enough by them to even feel the need to say that. They know they can leave, duh, they aren't stupid. This means what you are doing is an aggressive act of showing them the door. Whether they walk through it or not, you have still taken that aggressive action. If they then choose to leave, that does not change the action you took.
#5 : You even changed your signature to say Fuck Jung and everything else. It is clear you are taking action on powerful emotions. That says either strong unconscious Se driving you to do things, or conscious Se being expressed. Either way. It is clear you lack the hesitancy that an Se PolR or Se Seeking would have, that is what I am saying specifically about your Se. If Se is both conscious and hyper stressful for you like you just indicated, that would indicate Se Role most likely. Which would go with being an Ne dom, so I guess Ne doms can seem this forceful, huh? *sinks into musing for a bit*

It seems to me that you are *expecting* people to be forceful back to you in these debates, and that I think above all is what strikes me as likely 3D or better conscious Se. It seems Decisive and Static and probably Ego to me. I could of course be wrong.


----------



## counterintuitive

lets mosey said:


> I only meant to alleviate your stress. There's no reason you should feel bad about my leaving, if that's what you were expressing.


That's not what I was expressing. At all. I wasn't even responding to you in that post. I was responding to Fenix. Not everything has to do with you, not all of my thoughts revolve around you.


----------



## Immolate

counterintuitive said:


> That's not what I was expressing. At all. I wasn't even responding to you in that post. I was responding to Fenix. Not everything has to do with you, not all of my thoughts revolve around you.


lol.

Got it.

Your response does not seem forceful to me, by the way. Other people may feel differently, of course. I'll leave you to it.


----------



## counterintuitive

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Not necessarily. Goalpost moving is about changing the criteria being used while still discussing the thing, yes? That is intrinsically Dynamic, so all that says about me is that I am not a Static type. ALSO, by the by, to state a few things here that I feel need to be said.
> 
> #1 : *There is absolutely nothing wrong with "shifting goalposts".* The criteria of judgment must change whenever the thing BEING judged has changed, which happens all the time when discussing opinions and theoretical constructs. Particularly with opinions.
> #2 : I, personally, will never "stick to one goalpost" or some bullshit like that because that makes no sense to me, personally. How can I stick to the one goalpost doggedly when the field just flip flopped around? I need new posts for new terrain. The goal is part of the journey. If you cant handle this, tell me so, and I will not debate with you. But there is no way I will do that sort of debating that you describe.


You are intellectually dishonest. That's what you've just said. Information: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving_the_Goalposts



> #3 : When you tell someone that their idea has no merit, which you intrinsically are doing when you dismiss things in that manner, then you are being forceful. Whether they choose to exert force BACK is of course variable, but not all people feel it is worth the stress to do such a thing because not all people are comfortable/capable of that kind of forcefullness.


I expect a logical argument back in response, not force. I've spoken to many LIIs on this forum - Se PoLR, but strong Ti - and never encountered this problem.



> #4 : When you tell someone they are free to leave, part of what you are saying is that you are annoyed enough by them to even feel the need to say that. They know they can leave, duh, they aren't stupid. This means what you are doing is an aggressive act of showing them the door. Whether they walk through it or not, you have still taken that aggressive action. If they then choose to leave, that does not change the action you took.


That's not what I meant by it at all though. They seemed to be upset by the events of the thread, so I reminded them to leave if they are upset.



> #5 : You even changed your signature to say Fuck Jung and everything else. It is clear you are taking action on powerful emotions. That says either strong unconscious Se driving you to do things, or conscious Se being expressed. Either way. It is clear you lack the hesitancy that an Se PolR or Se Seeking would have, that is what I am saying specifically about your Se. If Se is both conscious and hyper stressful for you like you just indicated, that would indicate Se Role most likely. Which would go with being an Ne dom, so I guess Ne doms can seem this forceful, huh? *sinks into musing for a bit*
> 
> It seems to me that you are *expecting* people to be forceful back to you in these debates, and that I think above all is what strikes me as likely 3D or better conscious Se. It seems Decisive and Static and probably Ego to me. I could of course be wrong.


This point # 5 is actually valid. See, this is what I mean. A nice logical argument. Now, why can't you do this more often so we can actually communicate instead of showering me in incoherent rambling and logical fallacies?

And again, I'm expecting logical arguments back to me, just like your point # 5.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

I'm being quite logical by my own standards. I see what happens, I address it.

The Shifting the Goalposts link you just shared is clearly biased towards the current climate of academia, which is fairly static in nature. It's bias to assume that someone shifting the criteria of judgment necessarily equals ill intent or the intent to fool or "win" when they are not "able to win". Sometimes it is a shift of criteria precisely because what you just said made them realize there was a hole in the criteria, and it is now being addressed. Its called seeking the truth of the matter, rather than trying to win. 

Not all people will respond with pure logic like you want. The world does not work that way. You want logical debate, find people of like mind that want to debate with you. Simple enough.

I can't speak for owlet and mosey, but I would hazard a guess that your manner in "reminding them they can leave the thread" was more offensive than the original discussions. Had it been me it would have, anyway.

My point you just applauded as being logical was me shifting the goalpost. I literally just changed the criteria of judgment midpost, midparagraph even. I started out saying one thing and concluded with an entirely different point. So I'm confused. What exactly do you mean when you say shifting goalposts?

Lastly, everything I say is valid. Whether you think so or not.


----------



## counterintuitive

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I'm being quite logical by my own standards. I see what happens, I address it.
> 
> The Shifting the Goalposts link you just shared is clearly biased towards the current climate of academia, which is fairly static in nature. It's bias to assume that someone shifting the criteria of judgment necessarily equals ill intent or the intent to fool or "win" when they are not "able to win". Sometimes it is a shift of criteria precisely because what you just said made them realize there was a hole in the criteria, and it is now being addressed. Its called seeking the truth of the matter, rather than trying to win.


I'm not talking about "trying to win" - I'm talking about arguing in an intellectually honest manner free of fallacies.

I have found "the truth of the matter" all my life in this way, including converting and deconverting from multiple religions. I change my worldviews very regularly.

But I do not move the goalposts in arguments like you do. Because I value intellectual honesty.



> *Not all people will respond with pure logic like you want.* The world does not work that way. You want logical debate, find people of like mind that want to debate with you. Simple enough.


I know that all too well. Most of the world consists of dishonest goalpost-movers like you.



> I can't speak for owlet and mosey, but I would hazard a guess that your manner in "reminding them they can leave the thread" was more offensive than the original discussions. Had it been me it would have, anyway.


I thought my allegedly strong Se manner didn't offend you?



> My point you just applauded as being logical was me shifting the goalpost. I literally just changed the criteria of judgment midpost, midparagraph even. I started out saying one thing and concluded with an entirely different point. So I'm confused. What exactly do you mean when you say shifting goalposts?


Read the link. It's not "biased towards the current climate of academia", it's about logical argument.



> Lastly, everything I say is valid. Whether you think so or not.


Yay, more horse shit.

Dear heavens, I hope you are not my dual.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Your Se manner doesn't. However, statements like "Most of the world consists of dishonest goalpost-movers like you." do. You assume I am somehow dishonest as I am sitting here stating the way I see things, then responding to what you say. I'm not going to sit here and build some kind of framework for the discussion. There are no goalposts. Just say what you actually think, and then discuss it and learn. Its simple enough.

What does fallacy have to do with intellectual honesty? Honesty is about representing things as they are in your view. Being truthful. Being wrong does not mean that you are being untruthful. It means you are wrong. Extrapolate that to discussion of opinions like are discussed here, and it becomes actually impossible to be wrong as opinions cannot be wrong. That would mean, then, that dishonesty is not possible in a battle of opinions as long as you honestly say what you think/feel. That would mean, then, that I have never even once been dishonest with you. Worst I've done is walk away and withhold further comment.

Statements are not to be measured by valid/not valid. They are to be measured by HOW valid. Look at the big picture.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Hmm...perhaps it is Te that I am seeing here that sets me off. How would this look if it is Te...hmm...


----------



## counterintuitive

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Your Se manner doesn't. However, statements like "Most of the world consists of dishonest goalpost-movers like you." do. You assume I am somehow dishonest as I am sitting here stating the way I see things, then responding to what you say. I'm not going to sit here and build some kind of framework for the discussion. There are no goalposts. Just say what you actually think, and then discuss it and learn. Its simple enough.


I'm not asking you to "build a framework" - I'm asking you to respond to the points I'm making instead of what you think I'm saying.

Notably, you don't respond to what I write point for point; you respond to the thing as a whole. So you don't have to address individual points. You can just sweep it all under the rug.



> What does fallacy have to do with intellectual honesty? Honesty is about representing things as they are in your view. Being truthful. Being wrong does not mean that you are being untruthful. It means you are wrong. Extrapolate that to discussion of opinions like are discussed here, and it becomes actually impossible to be wrong as opinions cannot be wrong. That would mean, then, that dishonesty is not possible in a battle of opinions as long as you honestly say what you think/feel. That would mean, then, that I have never even once been dishonest with you. Worst I've done is walk away and withhold further comment.


Arguing in an intellectually honest manner requires not deliberately using fallacies as tools of argument. You acknowledged you do this when you said you see nothing wrong with moving the goalposts.

_"opinions cannot be wrong"_ Lol. If I say that 1+1=3 or that the moon is made of cheese, that is wrong, aka incorrect, aka false. So your statement that _"opinions cannot be wrong"_ is itself wrong, aka incorrect, aka false.



> Statements are not to be measured by valid/not valid. They are to be measured by HOW valid. Look at the big picture.


To quote you, _"everything I say is valid. Whether you think so or not."_


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

"I'm not asking you to "build a framework" - I'm asking you to respond to the points I'm making instead of what you think I'm saying.

Notably, you don't respond to what I write point for point; you respond to the thing as a whole. So you don't have to address individual points. You can just sweep it all under the rug."

Of course I don't respond point for point. This isn't some class where I have to build a structure. Just because I don't care for your division of things into points and counterpoints doesn't mean I am "sweeping things under the rug". Sweeping under the rug implies it is deliberate misleading, which I most certainly am NOT doing. You do not know my motivations. Also, I don't even see what "points I am sweeping under a rug". I address everything I have a response to, period. If I don't respond to it, then I had nothing to say either way. What, you want me to respond to say "umm, sure, k". And then nothing else? No.

"Arguing in an intellectually honest manner requires not deliberately using fallacies as tools of argument. You acknowledged you do this when you said you see nothing wrong with moving the goalposts.

"opinions cannot be wrong" Lol. If I say that 1+1=3 or that the moon is made of cheese, that is wrong, aka incorrect, aka false. So your statement that "opinions cannot be wrong" is itself wrong, aka incorrect, aka false.

"To quote you, "everything I say is valid. Whether you think so or not."

Exactly. To me, there is some validity to that, in that I find something to be learned in everything, including what I think and what I feel. The statements I make have value, whether they are correct or not, and that value is valid. Now compare that to a statement like 1+1=3. In alternate numbers models, this statement is true, but in the common use one it is not. In attempting to solve that equation, the lens you choose determines its correctness or not. In finding that it is not correct by the common model, you have ascertained a nugget of truth, which HAS VALUE. Everything that we say in these discussion is valid, which means goalposts are not even being moved in the logical fallacy sense that you are meaning. Rather, the meaning of each thing is being explored more definitively.

So, if you don't like my structure, then oh well. I'm not going to change it, because that will just get exhausting, I'll miss things, you'll reprimand me, I'll get frustrated and leave, and then no one is happy.


----------



## counterintuitive

@Fenix Wulfheart

That post is just more equivocating and meandering. Continuing to converse with you is hopeless. I can't even believe I fell for this again, after my frustrations with you in the Beta thread. I'm done here. Feel free to keep posting if you want. But I won't be responding.

Me, I'm going to go throw up and hopefully pass out and die before I meet my "dual" IEI someday. That would be worse than death.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

There is no equivocating here. There is certainly meandering, and that is not something I feel any need to apologize for. I'm sorry you feel like I am dishonest. However, I don't have to put up with that. So, fair warning. Call me dishonest again and I shall put you on ignore.

Fair even to you, and I hope you get to feeling better soon.


----------



## counterintuitive

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> There is no equivocating here. There is certainly meandering, and that is not something I feel any need to apologize for. I'm sorry you feel like I am dishonest. However, I don't have to put up with that. So, fair warning. Call me dishonest again and I shall put you on ignore.
> 
> Fair even to you, and I hope you get to feeling better soon.


I would be honored to be put on ignore by you. Lol. Nice "threat" there.


----------



## myst91

owlet said:


> So Ego are the two most valued, right? (One rational and one irrational i.e. for LII Ti and Ne.)


Four functions are valued, four are not. Ego functions are the functions that are strong and valued. It's not about "most valued" but if you were trying to think of what is most ego syntonic then the Ego block functions are that. Superid functions are less ego syntonic but valued as much as Ego functions in the meaning of the Socionics term of "valued".




> How would you check for Base/dual seeking dynamics?


Put the person together with their dual. :tongue: Or at least into an environment that has a lot of the dual seeking element. Essentially, just watch the typee's interactions with people who do provide at least some of the element and look at that IE specifically in the interactions.




> Thank you for the input! (I did a questionnaire a while back and it seemed to just make everyone confused and annoyed.)


I looked at your questionnaire, the 40q, added my opinion in there. 

I didn't really check the other one much but if it was anything like other socionics type threads on this forum, then let me guess, some people offered sensible guesses or didn't really know what to think while some other people instantly settled on some biased idea using their own made-up subjective patterns that have nothing to do with the actual system and not willing to reexamine things ever (this is the people that I basically call the delusional group) and then everything went to hell. :laughing:

The point is, none of it was your fault, I'm 100% sure on that without even looking. So don't worry about that.




> Why would you say Fi is less valued than Ti? Any particular indicators?


Your being quite polite (even to the point of overdoing it) while it was not exactly coming from a heartfelt personal place. Fi role. EIIs are polite too but it's a more personal thing in their case, the tone and everything.




> Well, from my impression of, for example, Ne that extroverted function isn't as inclined to action as the others, so that's less likely. But as you say, I don't think there's enough information to go on at the moment.


Ne can be quite active. Also don't forget Ne bases have Se role so just because of seeing some Se-ish stuff, it doesn't mean it's Se base. 




counterintuitive said:


> Yes, of course there can be lots of other reasons someone has headaches. It depends on other factors like what the person says. I try to gently remind some of my coworkers to drink water, lol, but only the ones who have noticed I drink a lot of water and asked me to remind them to do the same. I would not help them if they didn't ask.


Yeah, that makes sense. I still think drinking of water is just one small factor. Weak function would overfocus on some small factors. I'll explain more below on that.




> I'm checking which ideas are realistic, not which have potential.


Yes but when you generate the ideas that requires looking at potential.




> If it's part of type theory that I'm supposed to seek someone else to help me with basic life tasks that I've been easily doing on my own for 10 years, then fuck type theory.


You really misunderstand what Si is about. I repeat, it's not simply about basic life tasks. No. That can be taken care of with 2D Se too just fine. 

Si DS basically goes without living in all that much comfort - Si PoLR as well, but Si DS will actually be better off if there is more of it in their lives. See more below where I try to explain more. 




> Relatively unemotional and impartial. My emotional state being a blank/null value is a part of this.


Except when you get into the Fe mode, right? Even then you can't look inside, tho', yeah?




> Well, just this morning my dad claimed he is an atheist and then in the next sentence said "But I don't believe in the evolution dogma like most atheists. God created the earth." If you believe there was a deity that created the earth, then you must believe there is some kind of deity, so by definition you are not an atheist. So I asked my dad how he reconciles these.


I would not have asked him to reconcile those two, that's just an idiot speaking. :laughing:




> My dad also goes to the doctor regularly but attempted to stop me from going for my entire childhood because "It's immoral" - this is another inconsistency that I've challenged him on.


What, that's just plain weird. Anyway if this is that religious thingie then I think your dad is pretty Ti devaluing with these inconsistencies. 




> I can go on like this for pages. Of course, the people I talk to never acknowledge these inconsistencies in their views, and I don't consider it my responsibility to get them to think straight (I'm not a babysitter, thanks).
> 
> In my own views, I'm always checking for and reconciling inconsistencies. I can't think of any examples though. I recently left my religion because of irreconcilable inconsistencies within itself and with reality.
> 
> Idk if it's Ni or Ne. I just tried to explain how I see Ni, if it's not Ni then obviously I don't have very conscious Ni.


Seems Ne to me and these examples along with other ones you've provided before seem like the closed mouth quadra complex that Alpha quadra has - see here: Socionics - the16types.info - Alpha Quadra: The Complex of Closed Mouth by Stratiyevskaya




> It's mostly the application of my knowledge about nutrition. Making decisions in order to buy the correct foods. It's like a game with several variables that need to be optimized.


That's a really strong Ne+Ti approach to Si. At least very N with Ti. I like the Ti part of this. roud:




> This is *refined* Si?! :laughing:


Yes. The SLI pays attention to the optimizing of Si comfort in the way only Si bases really care to. It's quite nontrivial, this optimization, if you think about it. I don't care to do this consciously and I don't make others focus on such small details of optimum comfort but I do a lot of this myself in a rather automatic manner.




> If I'm upset for no reason, _obviously_ the first thing I do is drink water, then eat some food, then take a nap - waiting 20-30 minutes between each step to see if it helps. But I'm rarely upset for no reason, probably because I eat and drink throughout the day anyway.


Wow, this is a really good example of one-dimensional Si (both DS and PoLR). Since you focus on some isolated factors without seeing the whole Si big picture (that 4D Si sees) and you think these factors are all that are needed to solve the problem. Of course, they may end up solving it, the point here is the black and white focus on factors of an IE in the 1D way. 

Also specifically Si and not another IE because you are unable to read your body's signals in a refined way so you just execute a routine that you figured out works where the repetitiveness/inflexibility again points to low dimensionality. In your case so routinized that I would think 1D Si again over 2D. 

This is also where 4D Si really helps. Si base helps by consciously paying attention to the issue and by conscious optimization. Demonstrative Si would not call too much attention to it however.

Btw, I remember you mentioning how you hate people pointing out you sit weird etc. Si base would also go and help fix that in a non-aggressive manner. To Si PoLR of course it would be annoying still. 




> If I were the IEE, I wouldn't have answered "What's wrong?" and I would have told the SLI to shove the toast up his ass if he persisted. _No one_ tells me what to eat or how to eat it.


Lol @SLI.

Anyway, if you are in a relationship with someone, why wouldn't you answer your partner if they ask what's wrong?




Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Just want to chime in and say - this is fantastic advice. It is what proved to me that I'm not a Ti type way back when, and is how I identified Ni as my dominant function. Recognizing your own behaviors is a wonderful tool for self discovery.


This is actually very basic advice for anyone who wants to type themselves.

I definitely do this introspecting better and make more sense of it if I already have some system to go by... so that's where typologies helped. 




Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Also, am I the only one that notes counter is quite comfortable in confidently asserting his own opinions and crushing the opinions of those he thinks are wrong? He may not always know his own opinion on some things, but when he does it is put forward mightily. Makes me think Se in Ego rather than Ne, or at least Decisive Quadra.


No. It's nothing like Se ego. Don't mistake 2D Se for that :laughing:


OK I haven't read everything yet as I have to go out, I'll be back later.


----------



## counterintuitive

@myst91

Apparently you missed this post, but I'm not interested in this typology bullshit any longer. I have no interest in being typed or discussing this fucking bullshit. I hope I never meet an Si base but I'll be sure to murder them if I do. They are the face of everything wrong with the world (comfort and apathy) and they don't deserve to live. They should be rounded up and shot. They are useless, pointless, fucking pieces of trash. Or maybe I'll get lucky and die without ever meeting one. I am so fucking done with this garbage. Typology has ruined my life, I wish I could cut it out of my brain along with the liquid planets and idea bullshit. It's a useless and impractical curse. I hope I never have another idea again. I used to be so happy without them. Good fucking riddance.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

myst91 said:


> No. It's nothing like Se ego. Don't mistake 2D Se for that :laughing:
> 
> OK I haven't read everything yet as I have to go out, I'll be back later.


Heh. Back then I said Se in Ego *or* decisive Quadra. I'm not as confident as you appear to think I am 

I know, I sound confident even when I'm not sometimes.

Anyway, I mention it elsewhere that I think his Se is 2D at least. I've been debating Creative or Role back and forth for a bit. Meh. He doesn't want to hear any more, though.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> @myst91
> 
> Apparently you missed this post, but I'm not interested in this typology bullshit any longer. I have no interest in being typed or discussing this fucking bullshit. I hope I never meet an Si base but I'll be sure to murder them if I do. They are the face of everything wrong with the world (comfort and apathy) and they don't deserve to live. They should be rounded up and shot. They are useless, pointless, fucking pieces of trash. Or maybe I'll get lucky and die without ever meeting one. I am so fucking done with this garbage. Typology has ruined my life, I wish I could cut it out of my brain along with the liquid planets and idea bullshit. It's a useless and impractical curse. I hope I never have another idea again. I used to be so happy without them. Good fucking riddance.


OK, noted that you don't want to be typed atm. It's not really bullshit though, there are some things in reality that this theory points to, just the model has limits. I'm fine with it since I focus on the things it actually points to and I view the typology system itself from far outside it. Getting stuck inside this single system without placing it in context of many other frameworks for this world is what would be garbage/waste of time, yes.

Also a waste of time if it takes time from more important things with a real goal without it giving you anything, of course. So if you don't find it helpful to learn more about your type or Si or anything, I get that. I was only explaining Si more in my previous post in case you find it helpful due to the low awareness of Si (even if PoLR - I found it a bit useful myself to understand Ne more). 

Si isn't really about apathy as I said. Passive/introverted compared to Ep's/extraverts, sure. I still think you don't fully understand Si base since you let MBTI affect your understanding of it and that lack of understanding does confuse your trying to type yourself. E.g. I think the person you earlier called SEI with zero openness to ideas was probably an ESI. (Not negatively stereotyping ESIs here, just contrasting to show how Ne DS of Si base differs from Ne PoLR.)




Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Heh. Back then I said Se in Ego *or* decisive Quadra. I'm not as confident as you appear to think I am


 

Still, I doubt Decisive quadra. I'm like 90% ILE 10% EIE for him (in case I misinterpreted some things), and all other types excluded. (Btw @counterintuitive, is it OK if I discuss this (typing of you) with Fenix here? Or that's a problem too?)




> Anyway, I mention it elsewhere that I think his Se is 2D at least. I've been debating Creative or Role back and forth for a bit. Meh. He doesn't want to hear any more, though.


Not Se creative, zero Si.


----------



## counterintuitive

Go kill yourselves. You are all fucking worthless pieces of garbage. You deserve to die. I hate you. I fucking hate you. Go fuck yourself. I loathe you and wish you all nothing but the worst.

As for apathy, I've already discussed the quote from the duality article under SEI that I found apathetic. Not that it matters though, I simply do not believe in the existence of "Si" and you cannot force me to think otherwise. So fuck you especially. I hate you more than words can describe and I hope you suffer.


----------



## myst91

@counterintuitive

Okay, I'm forever done engaging you. Let alone trying to help when you have issues with trying to type yourself, let alone explaining patiently putting in a lot of time and so on. 

You are all nice in public and then when I ask a perfectly innocent question in PM you respond back that you asked me not to PM. This is fucking dishonest and trolly ill-will taking advantage of something that clearly should not be valid by now. 

Since you asked me that a long time ago (out of the blue by the way, for no reason!) around the same time when we had a fall-out in public sometime before you left the forum for a while. Then you came back and you acted like you no longer had a problem. I was willing to let go of it too once more. (Which mistake I will not make again.) How the holy goddamn fuck would I know from that behaviour that your request was still valid?

Either behave like you really do not want to be PM'd and not try to take advantage of my helpfulness in forum threads or don't do this bullshitting with referring to the old request.

You are nothing but a troll. You should be banned. Or if your mind is really this fucked up then go to a therapist instead of wasting the time on forums. I'm out of this thread too. Bye.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> Go kill yourselves. You are all fucking worthless pieces of garbage. You deserve to die. I hate you. I fucking hate you. Go fuck yourself. I loathe you and wish you all nothing but the worst.
> 
> As for apathy, I've already discussed the quote from the duality article under SEI that I found apathetic. Not that it matters though, I simply do not believe in the existence of "Si" and you cannot force me to think otherwise. So fuck you especially. I hate you more than words can describe and I hope you suffer.


Wow I did not see this before I posted.

Yes, you are clearly mentally ill.

Goodbye.


----------



## counterintuitive

@myst91

I did not ask you to help me, you continued to help out of your own volition. That was your decision. You could have left at any time.

The PM I replied with was a gentle reminder of my previous request, along with "please do not PM me" - that was it. I did that specifically because I *didn't* expect you to think my previous request was still valid. So I reminded you instead of reporting your PM.

And lol, I'm hardly nice in public. That is a strange observation.

I already see a therapist. 

Good fucking riddance to you too.


----------



## myst91

counterintuitive said:


> @myst91
> 
> I did not ask you to help me, you continued to help out of your own volition. That was your decision. You could have left at any time.
> 
> The PM I replied with was a gentle reminder of my previous request, along with "please do not PM me" - that was it. I did that specifically because I *didn't* expect you to think my previous request was still valid. So I reminded you instead of reporting your PM.
> 
> And lol, I'm hardly nice in public. That is a strange observation.
> 
> I already see a therapist.
> 
> Good fucking riddance to you too.


Just responding to correct some things.

I'm not interested in your attempt of explaining away this bullshit.

You were definitely acting in public towards me as if there was no problem, is what I meant by nice.


----------



## Thomas60

*Temp closed to be reviewed later*


----------



## birdsintrees

*Thread will remain closed.*


----------

