# Musings about my type, quadra values and type descriptions



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

aconite said:


> Eh, not quite. That's not my desire, that's a possible compromise, definitely not my dream solution  I'd rather make all these decisions myself - I like asking for feedback, but I tend to choose the solution that makes most sense to me.


If you want that be prepared for a doormat or perpetual bachelor hood.

Both have their perks, of course, but something tells me they are not amenable to you in the long run.


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

Elyasis said:


> If you want that be prepared for a doormat or perpetual bachelor hood.


Finding a romantic partner has never been a top priority, tbh. I definitely don't want a long-term relationship now and I can't quite imagine myself settling down.



Elyasis said:


> Both have their perks, of course, but something tells me they are not amenable to you in the long run.


Could you explain your reasoning?


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

aconite said:


> Could you explain your reasoning?


I tried. Wrote somewhat of a thesis on it before deleting it. Simply put, at some point in their lives, everyone wants companionship. Not just for the night but for as long as the other will have them.

It's alright for now to not know who or what that may entail. No one knows. Or it wouldn't be worth it to find out.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

aconite said:


> I don't understand you point...?


Intuitives get overtyped under MBTI due to prevalent stereotypes of intuition = creativity, intelligence, innovation, coming up with new ideas, etc. in addition to S-type bashing (Everybody is N). In socionics this stereotype isn't as potent. Charles Darwin, for instance, is typed as ISTp in Socionics rather than as intuitive type, INTJ in MBTI. 

For establishing your type Reinin dichotomies might be of aid: Reinin Dichtomies and also these thinking styles Forms of Cognition by Victor Gulenko


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> Intuitives get overtyped under MBTI due to prevalent stereotypes of intuition = creativity, intelligence, innovation, coming up with new ideas, etc. in addition to S-type bashing (Everybody is N). In socionics this stereotype isn't as potent. Charles Darwin, for instance, is typed as ISTp in Socionics rather than as intuitive type, INTJ in MBTI.


OK, thanks. I dislike Sensor-bashing and I think I'm intuitive in MBTI. But if my Socionics type is a S one, no big deal. I won't suddenly become less inteligent or imaginative, right?



cyamitide said:


> For establishing your type Reinin dichotomies might be of aid: Reinin Dichtomies and also these thinking styles Forms of Cognition by Victor Gulenko


I had much trouble deciding where I fall on most Reinin Dichotomies - I'm sure, though, that I'm Merry/Objective and Asking.

And the Forms of Cognition were most interesting, thanks! I definitely associate my thought processes most with Vortical-Synergetic Cognition, and a bit with Dialectical-Algorithmic Cognition.

Well, the only type that matches what I wrote in two previous paragraphs is IEI, apparently. But I still can't relate to it completely.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

aconite said:


> OK, thanks. I dislike Sensor-bashing and I think I'm intuitive in MBTI. But if my Socionics type is a S one, no big deal. I won't suddenly become less inteligent or imaginative, right?


Lol yeah right. You'll just be exposed to typism from the part of some stupid people. =P




> I had much trouble deciding where I fall on most Reinin Dichotomies - I'm sure, though, that I'm Merry/Objective and Asking.


Objective is not Merry, Merry is Subjective 




> Well, the only type that matches what I wrote in two previous paragraphs is IEI, apparently. But I still can't relate to it completely.


Why do you want to relate to it completely?


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Objective is not Merry, Merry is Subjective


Yes, you're right. I meant Subjective.



itsme45 said:


> Why do you want to relate to it completely?


Well, I'm curious about my type. I'm aware it's not possible to find a perfect match, of course, but I feel that IEI doesn't explain some important aspects of my personality. I tend to be brash and argumentative; nevertheless, prolonged fights make me bored. As soon as I vent, I can calm down. As I said before, I appreciate people who can stand up to me, but don't hold a grudge afterwards. I'm not sure if this is very IEI-ish behaviour.

Also (because I think I didn't make this clear enough), I don't struggle with planning or efficiency that much, I struggle with motivation. Sometimes I seem to be a workaholic, because I get so much done in so little time, and sometimes I'm the laziest couch potato you've ever seen.

Last but not least, thanks for taking your time to read my posts


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

aconite said:


> Well, I'm curious about my type. I'm aware it's not possible to find a perfect match, of course, but I feel that IEI doesn't explain some important aspects of my personality. I tend to be brash and argumentative; nevertheless, prolonged fights make me bored. As soon as I vent, I can calm down. As I said before, I appreciate people who can stand up to me, but don't hold a grudge afterwards. I'm not sure if this is very IEI-ish behaviour.


There is so so much about people that one single theory doesn't cover.

As long as you do relate to Fe-creative things too (do you??), I wouldn't worry 




> Also (because I think I didn't make this clear enough), I don't struggle with planning or efficiency that much, I struggle with motivation. Sometimes I seem to be a workaholic, because I get so much done in so little time, and sometimes I'm the laziest couch potato you've ever seen.


At least one thing is for sure, you are IP or EP temperament, forget the IJ/EJ ones


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> As long as you do relate to Fe-creative things too (do you??), I wouldn't worry


Yes, I definitely do.



itsme45 said:


> At least one thing is for sure, you are IP or EP temperament, forget the IJ/EJ ones


Spot on  I relate to IP more, but EP is not impossible.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

aconite said:


> Yes, I definitely do.


How? Can you be a bit more specific?


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> How? Can you be a bit more specific?


Sure 

For me, Fe is a part of who I am, although not my main concern. Rather means to an end. For example, one of my main concerns is to breathe life into the creations of my imagination, and the most natural way is to make them compelling. Because art should make people feel things (preferably those intended by the creator). As for myself, people who read my writings told me that I'm quite skilled at creating mood and expressing the characters' emotions. I tend to embellish things and be passionate about what I'm currently doing. I don't like it when things are dull.

Also, people told me that I'm a good teacher, because I can easily make people interested in things. I don't know if it's related, though.

I can relate quite a lot to the on-off aspect of the creative function. Sometimes I'm very expressive, sometimes I seem cold and aloof (especially when I want to be left alone). I also think I'm getting better at Fe as I get older - more nuanced, mainly (so I guess it's a contact function in my case).


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

aconite said:


> Sure
> 
> For me, Fe is a part of who I am, although not my main concern. Rather means to an end. For example, one of my main concerns is to breathe life into the creations of my imagination, and the most natural way is to make them compelling. Because art should make people feel things (preferably those intended by the creator). As for myself, people who read my writings told me that I'm quite skilled at creating mood and expressing the characters' emotions. I tend to embellish things and be passionate about what I'm currently doing. I don't like it when things are dull.
> 
> ...


I see  Yeah that sounds a lot like IEI  What you say about contact function, also makes sense. I'm this way with Ti, I think... becoming more nuanced etc.


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> I see  Yeah that sounds a lot like IEI  What you say about contact function, also makes sense. I'm this way with Ti, I think... becoming more nuanced etc.


Okay, thank you then  By the way, what do you think about subtypes? I know there are several systems and I'm not quite sure how to work out if they're valid and, if they are indeed, which one I am.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

aconite said:


> Sure
> 
> For me, Fe is a part of who I am, although not my main concern. Rather means to an end. For example, one of my main concerns is to breathe life into the creations of my imagination, and the most natural way is to make them compelling. Because art should make people feel things (preferably those intended by the creator). As for myself, people who read my writings told me that I'm quite skilled at creating mood and expressing the characters' emotions. I tend to embellish things and be passionate about what I'm currently doing. I don't like it when things are dull.
> 
> ...


Hm, when I create things, I tend to do it based on a certain mood or feeling I am currently experiencing and I want to create that as a piece of art. Conveying that feeling is less relevant to others as it is to explain and describe it to myself through my art. I think I primarily create for myself than for others. What function would that be in that case and would it help if you looked at my art to get an idea of how I do things? I am far more interested in the aesthetic and overall quality - it has to look good when I do GFX and I do not allow myself to fall prey for the basic pitfalls most people tend to fall into when they create something new for the first time, e.g. using hard-subbed source material when they make an (A)MV. I think the basic idea of my art is to feel what I feel though, if possible. But yes, I think I am more focused on technique with the exception of poetry where I can forego grammar structure and such in favor of something looking and feeling aesthetically good. 

Meh, I read all the functions when in the creative position and Ne still seems to make the most sense... Although what I experience seems to be so internal although it would fit the description of Jungian Si/Fi more (I would argue both of them for me) than Fe.

Actually, I think I'm socionics EII... At least ESTj as dual describes me much better (I do admire ESTJs in the manner they were described although I don't want to be like that, but yes, they can definitely help me grow in this respect) than ESFJ does. Yeah, I suspected something like this sigh. I have a very strong and developed Fi but this just doesn't show on socionics tests like the one I took because the way the questions are phrased - I often find myself in the middle ground between the two on the T/F ones. I do recognize myself as a thinker since I'm an MBTI thinker, but socionics EII fits better, fml.


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Conveying that feeling is less relevant to others as it is to explain and describe it to myself through my art. I think I primarily create for myself than for others. What function would that be in that case and would it help if you looked at my art to get an idea of how I do things? I am far more interested in the aesthetic and overall quality - it has to look good when I do GFX and I do not allow myself to fall prey for the basic pitfalls most people tend to fall into when they create something new for the first time, e.g. using hard-subbed source material when they make an (A)MV. I think the basic idea of my art is to feel what I feel though, if possible. But yes, I think I am more focused on technique with the exception of poetry where I can forego grammar structure and such in favor of something looking and feeling aesthetically good.


Technique is important in my opinion too - because bad execution of an idea distracts the viewer from the idea itself. Nevertheless, the worst crime in literature and art (at least in my opinion) is being boring. If your work is captivating enough, you can get away with breaking any rule (but, of course, you have to learn the rules in order to break them).



LeaT said:


> Actually, I think I'm socionics EII... At least ESTj as dual describes me much better (I do admire ESTJs in the manner they were described although I don't want to be like that, but yes, they can definitely help me grow in this respect) than ESFJ does. Yeah, I suspected something like this sigh. I have a very strong and developed Fi but this just doesn't show on socionics tests like the one I took because the way the questions are phrased - I often find myself in the middle ground between the two on the T/F ones. I do recognize myself as a thinker since I'm an MBTI thinker, but socionics EII fits better, fml.


I do recognise myself as a thinker in MBTI as well. Do you relate to the description of EII only, or do you relate to Delta as a whole too?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

aconite said:


> Technique is important in my opinion too - because bad execution of an idea distracts the viewer from the idea itself. Nevertheless, the worst crime in literature and art (at least in my opinion) is being boring. If your work is captivating enough, you can get away with breaking any rule (but, of course, you have to learn the rules in order to break them).
> 
> 
> I do recognise myself as a thinker in MBTI as well. Do you relate to the description of EII only, or do you relate to Delta as a whole too?


I misunderstood delta for beta. So typical. No, I don't identify much with delta. In retrospect, I can see how my behavior fits into detal though... I do identify very strong with the alpha group though, sigh.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

aconite said:


> Okay, thank you then  By the way, what do you think about subtypes? I know there are several systems and I'm not quite sure how to work out if they're valid and, if they are indeed, which one I am.


There is two systems but I never delved into DCNH much. Just the other simpler one, accepting/producing. Don't know what you mean by it being valid. It's about as valid as the whole socionics system itself  Let me know what you meant about that validity question. 

My understanding is that producing subtype just means the creative function is pretty strong. E.g. an introvert would look more extraverted and vice versa... I do relate to one subtype more than to the other but not always consistently. I also heard that you can change from one to the other subtype during your life. So, this is not so static, as types themselves.


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Don't know what you mean by it being valid. It's about as valid as the whole socionics system itself  Let me know what you meant about that validity question.


I wanted to know if they make sense (from your perspective, at least) and if there are any significant differences between IEI-Ni and IEI-Fe, for example. If they're as vaild as the whole system, I guess I can consider them good enough 



itsme45 said:


> My understanding is that producing subtype just means the creative function is pretty strong. E.g. an introvert would look more extraverted and vice versa... I do relate to one subtype more than to the other but not always consistently. I also heard that you can change from one to the other subtype during your life. So, this is not so static, as types themselves.


OK, thanks. I don't think my creative function is that strong, but I feel I'm less dreamy and passive than most IEI examples I could find online.

If going just by these descriptions, I relate more to IEI-Fe. However, according to this article, I'm more IEI-Ni, because I feel my emphasis is more on NT side of things (as opposed to SF).


----------



## StellarTwirl (Jul 1, 2012)

aconite said:


> OK, thanks. I don't think my creative function is that strong, but I feel I'm less dreamy and passive than most IEI examples I could find online.
> 
> If going just by these descriptions, I relate more to IEI-Fe. However, according to this article, I'm more IEI-Ni, because I feel my emphasis is more on NT side of things (as opposed to SF).



I don't know how accurate the typings are, but *according to this*, *IEI-Ni's* are Carl Jung, Isaac Newton, Friedrich Nietzsche, Stanley Kubrick, Edgar Allen Poe, Aldous Huxley, H.L. Mencken, Albert Camus, Darren Aronofsky, Fiona Apple, etc.

And *IEI-Fe's* are Martin Luther King, Soren Kierkegaard, Amadeus Mozart, David Lynch, Kurt Cobain, Osama Bin Laden (haha), Steve Buscemi, Tupac Shakur, Ewan McGregor, etc.


Which bunch do you relate to more? Most of them strike me as fairly strong-willed. Either way, I'd consider this type to be good company ... the Ni group, in particular, seems to be a garden of unconventional thought.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

aconite said:


> I wanted to know if they make sense (from your perspective, at least) and if there are any significant differences between IEI-Ni and IEI-Fe, for example. If they're as vaild as the whole system, I guess I can consider them good enough


What would count as a significant difference? There are sites that say subtype matters in duality too, then other people don't even believe in subtypes.

As for the validity... I was being a bit cynical tbh 




> OK, thanks. I don't think my creative function is that strong, but I feel I'm less dreamy and passive than most IEI examples I could find online.
> 
> If going just by these descriptions, I relate more to IEI-Fe. However, according to this article, I'm more IEI-Ni, because I feel my emphasis is more on NT side of things (as opposed to SF).


Type description != functional makeup. That's a fundamental issue in any cognitive function based typology.


----------

