Back to Wikisocion articles home (the links on the page will take you to the wrong places). This page was retrieved in February 2010 and is a backup copy of a Wikisocion article.
User:Niffweed17/Consensus List - Wikisocion

User:Niffweed17/Consensus List

From Wikisocion

Jump to: navigation, search

this project is no longer supported as of 07:07, 12 October 2008 (BST)



WARNING. THIS PROJECT IS DEPRECATED. VIEWERS RUN THE RISK OF EXPOSING THEMSELVES TO OUTDATED INFORMATION.

This page is meant to be a consensus-based collaborative projects for the users of the16types.info and other members of the western socionics community. In it, the types of the various users and/or community members are discussed.

This page is inspired by metapedianism

PLEASE PUT ALL TYPE CONCLUSIONS IN BOLD. If you think user John Doe is an LIE, please say LIE so that tallies can be more easily kept.

ANY TALLIES THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THE BOLDED TYPE "VOTES" WILL BE ALTERED.

If you need to change a comment that you made and no longer agree with, for posterity, please do not erase it. Instead, use the strikethrough feature with <s> TEXT </s>.


A consensus, as determined by this page, requires at least 2/3 support for some particular type. In the traditional wiki style, I am reneging (reneguing?) on this rather quantitative measure of something that can't be measured qualitatively. Consensus is now defined as follows: If it's not obvious that some consensus exists, then no consensus exists.

Contents

[edit] anndelise

  • Current consensus: none
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable):
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
1 3

[edit] Discussion Area

ILE. the following is copied off of my userpage: this is a case where IEE superficially makes a lot of sense, but i think the superficial typing here is a mistake. i understand where people use her interpretation of socionics to make the case that she makes poor use of Ti, but i've seen her make very good use of Ti in the construction of elaborate socionics-related models, which resemble models by users such as slava and jxrtes. at least as importantly, 100% of her arguments, although often expressing pseudo-moral outrage, deal with conflicting factoids which lead to logical contradictions. IMO often she perceives the situation incorrectly and/or her initial conditions are piss-poor oversimplifications. it's very hard to argue with her because she rarely realizes how misguided her treatment of the problem is; ime this is very NeTi and also very typical of ILEs. also, her treatment of    -related issues, such as those dealing with mcnew's politics (i give credit to rick for initially pointing this out) is somewhat less than understanding of    . Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 17:58, 29 January 2008 (GMT)

IEE, Ne subtype, no question. Just because anndelise spent time constructing Socionics models and what not, does make for Ti. Ti != modeling. I'm surprised the "anndelise is ENTp" myth is still going strong... no wait, of course I'm not surprised. Sigh. She's also one of only a few people in total among the forums, who actually possesses a sane and decisively accurate Fi sense of things. She is quite adept at gauging people in that way and seeing them for exactly who they are, what their person is like, and having a great deal of insight into the situations related to them. I wish she posted more. Dynamicism 21:04, 29 January 2008 (GMT)

Two questions: in what way do you see her as capable of "gauging people and seeing them for exactly who they are?" Give examples of this, because this is not something that i am able to perceive her as having any strength in. also, do you think that the suggestion of creating models is totally irrelevant to type or merely less important than whatever strengths you see in her    ? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:51, 29 January 2008 (GMT)

IEE I believe she understands Fi quite well, and it is a strong function for her. Ne also is apparent in her. Knowing her I don't see how anyone could suggest ILE, as it makes no sense whatsoever. The preceding unsigned comment was added by diana

not very descriptive. can you elaborate? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:34, 5 February 2008 (GMT)

IEE. I've questioned this in the past, but after conversations with her about it decided it's extremely likely that she's IEE. --Joy 14:03, 6 February 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Ashton

Announcement: It has come to my attention that this particular discussion is being bombarded with socionix users. If I were able to see the manner in which this were being handled, and were able to verify that whatever is going on is a legitimate discussion of socionics, then i would allow this. however, i attempted to do so and found that my user account at socionix had been banned (for no legitimate reason that i can imagine). socionix furthermore does not allow unregistered users to view threads. therefore i find myself unable to determine whether or not the influx of socionix users is as a result of ashton shouting "OMG THOSE IDIOTS TYPED ME AS SLE COME VOTE AND PROVE THEM WRONG." This would alter the vote total significantly.

I am not opposed to a presence by socionix on this list. However, I am opposed to a presence by socionix to intimidate this list into submission by throwing around their own typings mindlessly. I cannot verify that this is not occurring, and this is exactly the sort of thing that I would expect from socionix.

I have decided to leave the discussion alone, since some people are actually making serious arguments about Ashton's type. However, no votes will be tabulated and no consensus will be formally established for this discussion. This may change in the future if I see that socionix users are participating seriously and constructively on this list.

Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 05:35, 5 January 2008 (GMT)

Huh? Who bombarded anything...? As far as I know there was one vote added by Steve... what's going on? Nobody at Socionix would give a shit to do that, 99% wouldn't even be bothered enough to log in here. And if they did anything like that I'd be pissed. Dynamicism 10:40, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
Okay, I just looked through the history and I see raisonpure had added a vote for LIE as well, bringing the total count up to 4. LOOK HERE PLEASE IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, THE EDIT HISTORY SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. Following that, you freaked out and thought there was some kind of grand conspiracy at work by them damned dirty Socionix sumbitches. There wasn't. I want my vote table back please. Dynamicism 11:04, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
Fuck why I am asking, this is horseshit. I'm adding it back myself. Ban me if you want, but you aren't in the right to do so. No foul play has occurred for you to justify getting paranoid like this. Unless there's something I don't know about how these wiki things work and something happened that isn't showing up in the edit history. Then I would have to wonder what happened too and get paranoid. Dynamicism 11:09, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
If you think that this is an overreaction precipitated by the fact that I don't like you personally or your way of doing things, you are damn right. Accept that the list itself is unimportant and move on. And don't add it back again or your edits will be considered vandalism. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 13:03, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
Eh, alright, fine. It doesn't matter anyway. I'll leave the table alone for now and see what happens. Raisonpure's vote, of course, will not be counted as she left no comment. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 13:12, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
If my vote was indeed not counted because I did not leave a comment, please make the rule clear at the top of the page. If you did so because you thought I'd obey Ashton on something as silly as "OMG THOSE IDIOTS TYPED ME AS SLE COME VOTE AND PROVE THEM WRONG." like I'm his puppet, may you die a miserable death for your blindness (to put it not-so-nicely, fuck you) Raisonpure 10:09, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
with regards to the rule thing: it's already right at the top of the page:
  • "any tallies that do not conform to the bolded type "votes" will be altered."
Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:28, 7 January 2008 (GMT)


  • Current consensus: none
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): LIE Dynamicism 01:36, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
4 4 7

[edit] Discussion Area

lol my turn. Awaiting the ejaculatory barrage of you know what votes :\ Dynamicism 22:07, 3 January 2008 (GMT)

be serious or be banned. SLE. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:53, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I voted ESTp Changing vote to ENFj. --Discojoe 01:22, 11 January 2008 (GMT)
  • MaN why I always gotta be SLE in this mug... Seriously, if people are going to be offering votes on my type, can they at least try to have a more comprehensive viewpoint about me rather than basing their decision off of a very narrow range of my outward behaviors that they whine is    ? I think a lot of people must be very sheltered for many of the things they think are "   " lol... I means it's almost as bad as like "omg someone said a bad word,     alert!!!" Retarded. For that I think my supposed     mode orientation gets overemphasized. Dynamicism 01:36, 4 January 2008 (GMT)Dynamicism
  • SLE is my vote as well. An FDG clone, both in personality and (to a degree) looks, but with a little more attention to logic/consistency, and considerably less...likeable. -- Gilly (02:08, 4 January 2008 (GMT))
  • Lol you don't even have a reason to hate me except that it's in vogue to do so at the forum and talk about what a HeReTiC I am. Jesus ------- Christ quit being such a 6.Dynamicism 02:36, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • You haven't the faintest idea of the reasons I have, Ashton; your schemes at the16types don't even scratch the surface of my dislike for you. And that's putting it nicely. Now let's move on. -- Gilly (03:34, 4 January 2008 (GMT))
  • He's a Ni-LIE to my eyes, and not because - as Gilly says - this supports my own self-typing. I've known him for many yaears, and as most people he's gone through phases in which he was more outgoing, others in which he was more stressed-angry, others in which he was more confrontational, others in which he was less. Still the basic personality is the same, and to ignore how the greatest majority of his posts literally drip of     is to me impossible.
Yes, LIEs can be confrontational, in spite of their said "Victimhood" in terms of erotic attitudes. In fact how Joy has been able to mistify anybody which is confrontational into a Beta ST is strange to me.
How does Gilligan criticize my logical consistency when some days ago he sustained that me and Ashton aren't necessarily the same type, and now he changed to us being "clones", I don't honestly know! I can say he's got a lot of courage. FDG 08:57, 4 January 2008 (GMT)FDG
  • I still don't think you're the same type, Fabio. Learn to read and stop trying to use    . -- Gilly 15:55, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Tossed in my own vote for LIE since it appears we can do that now. Dynamicism 20:51, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I gotta go with LIE as well. People have been claiming that he's Ti ESTp, but I don't see how. Actually many Ti ESTps are somewhat similar to myself in how we communicate, albeit the content of what we say may focus differently. Ashton however uses a different "language" in communication. He doesn't come across as static to me. In fact, and especially when it comes to describing something abstract, I always feel like its a whole stream of flowing things coming from Ashton, and a fluid interconnectedness in what he is discussing. Its not surprising that he shows a lot of Se, because he does. I think the mistake people make is that they assume the 5th and 6th functions of someone to be weak, and almost non-existent without the involvement of their dual or activity or something. I think that's incorrect. Just because a person doesn't have their 5th and 6th functions in their ego block, doesn't mean that the person won't be attuned to them and pay attention to them. You may notice that a lot of N-types talk about S-things, actually that's kinda what being an N is about - looking at S-things through N-eyes, and vise versa for S-types. Ashton seems very Se because he focuses a lot on on it. It interests him highly, and it seems to be a focus in his life. I'd even say the same for me and Si. I really focus a lot on Si stuff. I talk about it, make jokes about it, and it really has an encompassing feel to me, but of course I look at it through Ne and Ti, and not have the focused-ness with it that an ESFj or ISFp may have. People need to be careful to not think of types as purely "N-types, T-types, F-types, S-types" etc, because in all honesty, T types are not binary emotionless robots, F-types are not mushy illogical people, N-types are not in outer space (at least not healthy ones), and S-types don't lack imagination.

Bottom line - don't be surprised to see Se in an ENTj, or Si in an ENTp, or even Ni in an ESTp. - Now to differentiate Ashton's use of Ni from an ESTps use of Ni - Ashton, like I said, seems dynamic, there's just a flow or movement in the way he goes about everything. His Ni seems to be in the ego block, whereas an ESTp can talk about Ni stuff, just the way I like to talk about Si stuff, but it'll seem more like they're talking ABOUT it, rather than actually doing it in a direct, focused way.

Also, he to me just seems quite Gamma. The type of functional values and the way he looks at stuff just seems quite different - there is an NT similarity I see as well with myself, but its like with Gamma there's this alternate universe, where stuff is just upside down, and that's kinda the feel I get from Ashton and other Gamma's values. Steve 21:55, 4 January 2008 (GMT)

I utterly disagree with your interpretation that he's gamma and your interpretation that he's Ni, neither of which you explained very well. Examples would be a significant help. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:56, 4 January 2008 (GMT)

You seem to like to have people "audition" for your logical approval. Why don't we turn the tables a bit. Why don't YOU provide US with some examples that support why you think Ashton's not Gamma. Also, I would love to hear what specifically about my interpretation that he's Gamma or Ni you disagree with, and why, and then I'd be happy to provide some examples to compare to yours to substantiate my point :). Steve 22:09, 4 January 2008 (GMT)

Steve, your concept of "Gamma values" as in "alternate universe" and "stuff upside down" does not seem to find backing in classical socionics concepts. Is that based on your observations of people you think are Gammas? "Gamma values" usually refer to preferences for Te, Se, Ni, Fi, and what those lead to. If you mean something else, based on observations of individuals, it becomes a bit like circular thinking. The stuff about "alternate universe" and "stuff upside down", whatever that means, could be a sign of Ni; not necessarily of Gamma. Expat 23:10, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
Looks to me like this talk about "different universe" and "stuff upside down" was simply an analogy and nothing more. That is, he was portraying how Ni/Se/Fi/Te feels according to his own vantage point of Ne/Si/Fe/Ti. I think he also made clear that this analogy was just a subjective anecdote - it doesn't like he was offering it as a claim of definitive proof. You are so hyperliteral and concrete that it pains me to think you could ever imagine yourself to be an Intuitor. And you seem to be just cherry-picking this out of isolation to give off a facade that you've delivered a definitive refutation of everything else that was said in the post. Do you have actually anything else to say aside from your confused critique on this one subjective analogy? Dynamicism 00:22, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
The rest of what he said, about types being able to use other functions, is trivial and doesn't require addressing. The only thing that seemed different was that analogy, which you are now saying that it wasn't a case at all. So, as you seem to agree, what he said is, essentially, nothing. Expat 09:53, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
Lol, more pompous dickheadedness from you as usual. Expat, just because your little LSE brain doesn't understand what was said, doesn't mean it's meaningless. Don't twist my words around either to say what I didn't say. Fucking bloated gasbag PoS. Dynamicism 00:19, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
So, you actually agree that that drivel was meaningless. Thanks. Expat 23:31, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
We're agreeing that you're too retarded to understand it. You're welcome. Dynamicism 00:10, 8 January 2008 (GMT)
Expat, I'd like to ask you, what DID you think I was trying to say? And what points was I trying to make? Because it appears as if you think I said white when I said black. Also, when you do recite to me the points I have said, please tell me which ones you don't agree with, and what real-life evidence exists to back up those disagreements. In addition, I would like to know why you don't believe that types don't have any usage of the super-id functions, particularly since those two functions ARE quadra-valued functions, and they are supposedly searched for in the dual. And I would like your reason to be something other than "It's not classical socionics literature", which in reality may be your INTERPRETATION of classical socionics literature, and even if it were entirely against socionics literature, so what? What really matters is whether the phenomenon described actually apply to reality. That's what socionics was created to describe. And the fact is, in reality, nobody is purely a T-type or an F-type. Nobody is either a binary robot or a logic-less gushball, and to believe otherwise would show total ignorance of what is. Thanks :)Steve 01:51, 8 January 2008 (GMT)
Steve, all of that is obvious. That's not remotely what's in dispute here. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:19, 8 January 2008 (GMT)
Steve, when I said it was "trivial", was because it was "obvious", just as niffweed said. Please re-read carefully my original question to you: it was about the "upside-down world of Gammas". My original paragraph just above, addressed to you, makes that very clear. Expat 10:54, 8 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I don't have a strong opinion, not knowing Ashton personally or having discussed anything with him ever, but I have taken some great     phrases from a post or two of Ashton's for the vocabulary page. When I first appeared at the16types, there were a number of aggressive so-called LIEs who tried to prove that I was "ENTj, too," and I think they have dispersed to different types (FDG, Eidos, maybe others). Later I got the impression that the MBTI concept of ENTJ is more action-oriented and aggressive than the socionics LIE is generally seen to be. So maybe there has been some carry-over of MBTI descriptions to socionics LIEs?? But anyway, I have a hard time seeing Ashton as LIE because he is not dry enough, but is consistently colorful and seems to stir up the waters wherever he goes. The     phrases I got from him were more the sort of things one hears out of an SLE's mouth than out of an LIE who is "interested in Se." I understand Steve's argument about being interested in and 'using' the 6th function, but this would look more like copycat behavior or accumulating interesting knowledge rather than a consistent, creative tool for interaction and expressing oneself. Plus, the fact that his (?) forum has been a haven for Beta types with their "uninhibited self-expression" is another argument in favor of Beta. Seeing how these same people often dislike Joy and Expat (okay, assuming their types are correct), who are essentially normal LIEs (i.e. not at all universally disliked), it would be strange for them to rally around yet another LIE. I also get the impression that Ashton is more rough-and-tumble and not too interested in discussing his feelings or what different people have said to him and how to interpret their intentions, etc. (typical     interests). So, basically, I personally don't see anything that obviously points to leading    , but I do see things that could point to     and Beta. So my tentative vote is SLE. --Admin 05:38, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
Thanks Admin, I appreciate your input. This was the sort of thing I was looking for that nobody has offered up yet. As far as how I came to know I was ENTj, it didn't come from Myers-Briggs. I had consistently tested in MBTI as xNTx for years, always borderline on both the I/E and J/P dichotomy. But eventually settled on ENTP. When I got into Socionics, I knew right away after reading what I think was the Stratyvieska (sp) ENTj profile, that this was describing me so I knew that was it. I hadn't vacillated on that decision since, sans one time 1.5 years ago where for a few days I thought I could be SLE. This was after Fabio and I talked about it, at the time he was considering converting to SLE from LIE. Anyway, I think people may be reading too much into my supposed Se dominance. Yes I know I'm colorful lol... it helps make life less boring. Also where is it written that ENTjs are dry? I'd like to see where this is said. Otherwise I'm confused as to why this mythology started, since many descriptions speak of them as being something like rather outgoing, visionary, and even charming individuals. Sure, I'm into "uninhibited self-expression" but maybe not for reasons most people I think. I don't do it to be an ass, it's just that I see no point in restraint and I think the world would be better off if people just said what they really meant. I absolutely utterly loathe pretense and formalities, couldn't it be said I'm speaking from an     attitude? On Expat and Joy, I think everyone knows by now that I think they're LSE and ESE respectively. I may act rough and tumble but again that seems to be a recurring trait in many ENTj descriptions. Often they're spoken of by various authors as being pioneering, adventurous, liking to take risks, push the limits, and test their own mettle. Surely these authors are not all wrong? Correct, I am not interested in discussing my feelings. My feelings are personal - if I shared them with an audience, they wouldn't be personal anymore. I'm very private about my emotions and my personal life because I think they are too important to be shared with strangers - honestly it would feel disgusting to do so, as if I was whoring myself out and I'm very repulsed by the thought of it. So yeah I'm extremely guarded and private about that sort of thing and keep that information between those who are close and dear to me. Again, why is that not an     attitude? Now, when it comes to other people's intentions, I am very interested in these things. And I'm constantly reading what people say to me and inferring what I think is behind their words... what do they really mean, what are they not saying, what is their intent, their motives, their sentiments, their outlooks, their character, their background... what do they value, how do they see the world, are they good or evil, are they honest or dishonest, are they loyal or backstabbing, are they charitable or selfish, do they have principle or not, do they have backbone or not, do they believe in anything, do they have conviction? Etc. This is all something I automatically do in any interaction without even thinking about it. I compulsively read people and get into their heads and see what kind of person they are underneath. I do render judgments about them based on whatever I pick up on and I'm far more often right than wrong. And I've shared some of these things I've thought about people - like what I said about Joy for instance under her section. If I'm SLE, I'm not seeing the     agenda going on. I'd love for any Betas that have talked to me to confirm whether I have     or not. I don't see it in me and in my experience I've always been averse to it. I know I've always craved     in relationships and been immensely attracted to it, which would seem a very odd contradiction for someone who has an     PoLR I think. Also, as much I hate to say it lol... I'm a Victim not an Aggressor in my romantic relations. I hate and can't stand submissive women and I honestly feel much more comfortable when the woman is in charge of the relationship. It just feels more natural to me and I'm happier in that kind of arrangment. I have much more respect and attraction towards women that are strong and have a commanding presence. I don't see why an SLE would ever say something like what I just said. Food for thought, would be interested to hear what you have to say back. Dynamicism 13:18, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
I don't know much about you and don't place a ton of credence in virtual typing, so I don't want to get into a really serious discussion without having much to say. I see LIEs and all four     Ego types as "dry" because they all try to talk about things in a matter-of-fact manner, which usually means emotionally flat and unexpressive (LIEs are exciteable -- more so than LSEs -- but still emotionally unexpressive). LIEs tend to go on and on on a single topic until they are stopped. For me SLEs are more spontaneous and unpredictable types, ever looking for something to throw out to stir things up, then calming down quickly, only to mobilize once again at the drop of the hat. One could argue that Joy "stirs things up," but she doesn't seem to do this intentionally. I think the LIE domain does a perfect job showing the 'dryness' I'm used to seeing from LIEs. There are tons of facts and examples and demonstrations of expertise in various subjects with little bits of subtle dry humor. Compare that to the spirit of the SLE domain which is playfully bombastic and mocking.
I agree that LIEs are often pioneering and many are drawn to risky endeavors (speculative business, extreme sports, etc.), but they also openly speak of their doubts as to whether they "have what it takes" to achieve their goals. This is similar to EIEs and I think is an expression of    . LIEs and EIEs like to play tough (act the     game), but they can easily be caught off guard and defenseless. SLEs by comparison always seem to be monitoring their borders and are almost impossible to ruffle up directly (i.e. by intimidating them). But they're easier to make uneasy by creating a lot of uncertainty about the immediate future.     types tend to be a lot calmer about uncertainty, but worse about monitoring their borders. I don't know which applies to you more.
"...push the limits, and test their own mettle..." Perhaps this is a trait of LIEs, but it's still related to their    , not    . Compare Madonna, for instance, and Sheryl Crow (not 100% sure she is LIE, but I tend to think so). When LIEs press the limits, it's like a short-term show of prowess. For leading     types, knowing and continually testing their personal boundaries is an integral part of life (and what activates those always hesitant     types).
"...I hate and can't stand submissive women and I honestly feel much more comfortable when the woman is in charge of the relationship. It just feels more natural to me and I'm happier in that kind of arrangment. I have much more respect and attraction towards women that are strong and have a commanding presence. I don't see why an SLE would ever say something like what I just said...." Probably not, but it's never possible to know exactly what you mean at a distance. --Admin 16:09, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
By the way, I found the thread where I picked up a lot of colorful     related phrases. Sure, there are other kinds of information in there and one thread isn't at all decisive, but the whole feel is very    . --Admin 16:36, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
Niffweed don't worry, there has been no recruiting of people on socionix to come and vote for Ashton as LIE. Everyone who has voted has attempted to make legitimate arguments like you mentioned, so no need to fret :).Steve 06:34, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
There do seem to be quite a few paranoia between "those two forums"... --Admin 06:45, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
Eidos has never dispersed to a different type, Rick. It's Joy that said he's SLE, and now see? It's already truth. You people should pay attention not to consider her opinion the "generally accepted opinion". FDG 10:20, 5 January 2008 (GMT)FDG
OK, I stand corrected. --Admin 10:34, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
As a 7w8, he would correspond best with a Se. I see Se anyway. I also see Ti. SLE -- Ezra 17:20, 5 January 2008 (GMT)

"I compulsively read people and get into their heads and see what kind of person they are underneath. I do render judgments about them based on whatever I pick up on and I'm far more often right than wrong. And I've shared some of these things I've thought about people - like what I said about Joy for instance under her section. If I'm SLE, I'm not seeing the agenda going on. I'd love for any Betas that have talked to me to confirm whether I have or not. I don't see it in me and in my experience I've always been averse to it. I know I've always craved in relationships and been immensely attracted to it, which would seem a very odd contradiction for someone who has an PoLR I think. Also, as much I hate to say it lol... I'm a Victim not an Aggressor in my romantic relations. I hate and can't stand submissive women and I honestly feel much more comfortable when the woman is in charge of the relationship. It just feels more natural to me and I'm happier in that kind of arrangment. I have much more respect and attraction towards women that are strong and have a commanding presence. I don't see why an SLE would ever say something like what I just said."

I'm SLE, and I would say this. SLEs are Aggressors and don't mind being in awe of the partner. Aggressors DESPISE passivity. They want playful contact. With an 8 wing, I'm surprised you haven't grasped this. Also, why don't you have Fe HA? Pray tell. And are you telling me you prefer the "aww, come on" passive approach to reassurance to the "come on! Stop sulking! You can do this!"? -- Ezra 17:26, 5 January 2008 (GMT)

Ezra, your ideas on aggressors are confused. How could Se dominants despise passivity if they're naturally paired with Ni types, definitely among the most passive on the whole socion? There must be something wrong in your interpretation. They probably despise passivity in themselves but not in others. FDG 09:39, 6 January 2008 (GMT)FDG
But     types easily become active when around     types. I think it's more the     type of passivity     types dislike — when the person refuses to "make an effort" above what feels comfortable. --Admin 09:51, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
Ok, true. But I think that generally speaking IEIs and ILIs can be considered as "passive" in comparison to most other types except Si dominants. And to say that somebody DESPISES passivity seems to imply difficulty in having as dual a person that ranks among the highest on the socion in terms of passivity. [By the way - not sure if this gives an indication on my type - I prefer passivity over aggressivness-activity in a girlfriend, I'm put off by the second] FDG 10:01, 6 January 2008 (GMT)FDG
  • I vote(d) LIE because:
1. Even before I started talking to Ashton, one thing was painfully clear: He's my Supervisor. I felt intimidated by him, and to this day, I still don't feel very comfortable in his presence. Krae has expressed the same feeling of discomfort around Ashton. It's not a balancing relation that allows me to let my guard down and feel at peace. He's not my dual; and I don't come close to being his. If he's ESTp, I might as well change my type to INTj, as ludicrously wrong as it is.
2. His description of an ideal mate describes an ISFj (and the     subtype at that) more than an INFp. WTF @ an ESTp who wants to be tamed by a strong woman, that's like a reversal of roles.
3. He shares some of my values, but not all. He pays no heed to my     concerns. I'm entirely powerless to stop him from introducing discord. I expect my dual to be cooperative when it really matters, and not completely dismissive.
4. His     is very strong, though I'm not surprised that a lot of people can't see it. He possesses as much insight as krae, and I respect him for it. Raisonpure 11:57, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • What I find interesting is how he reacts to me. I don't know what it is, but it almost looks as if I am his Supervisor. Basically, I'll make a comment, and he takes it as a personal attack, and so he'll almost overreact, but he covers it up with a smile or a lol, like he's trying to control his anger. I find this very interesting and revealing, but I'm not sure what it reveals. Perhaps someone could enlighten me. -- Ezra 17:52, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
Lol, I don't get angry on here - this is the internet for fucks sake. I might sound like it sometimes, but I'm not, sometimes I just like to sound dramatic maybe because it's entertaining. If I'm angry, it's very obvious because I don't have any impulse control where I can suppress it, I just explode in a geyser of vitriol. Anyway, considering the "political dynamics" at stake, for the most part I've had a difficult time discerning the intention of some of the things you say - whether you're trying to get a rise out of me or whether you're supporting someone against me. Because most things you've said in reference to me have been in response to things other people have said to me or about me. You haven't really spoken to me much in a direct way, so it hasn't been easy inferring your motives. So I wasn't sure whether I should just start hating you or not, which I've relented in doing so since you seem potentially likable enough to not have as an enemy. Dynamicism 20:02, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • SLE. --Joy 23:14, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • lol so far my name appears 7 times in Ashton's type discussion --Joy 23:20, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I voted LIE, So far it's been obscenely apparent that not only is Ashton in my quadra, he's definitely my mirror. Ashton has some of the cut and dry TeNi characteristics and functional uses that practically define gamma logical types, especially with Ni subtypes. It's hard not to notice the Ni that he practically bleeds into anything he explains and labeling him a sensor due to "outbursts" and "retaliation" must be the most retarded shit i've ever seen. Zeia 1:30, 9 January 2008 (EST)
  • I'm not sure what's going on here but my inbox keeps getting flooded with global PMs from the Socionix crowd telling me that if I don't come here and make a comment Krae's gunna hack by box :O Bionicgoat 07:55, 10 January 2008 (GMT)
Lol :D INTERNET DRAMA BOMBING RAID ALERT Dynamicism 16:52, 10 January 2008 (GMT)
  • If he really has as much     as is supposed, then EIE. SLE would be the next option. --Livestock Mauler 01:40, 11 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I vote EIE. Rick already mentioned the point of "uninhibited self-expression" which seems to be the motto of the Beta atmosphere in socionix and their chat (at least last time I saw it, but I doubt it has changed). EIE who's too focused on the superid functions Se and Ti, hence the impression of SLE on many. Over-focus on superid accounts for the fact that it is mainly identicals and mirrors (Jadae, Krae, Zeia, Sarah), but anyway Betas, who find him most congenial. Concept of Ni is more like the Beta version of Ni and Ti. Inclination to drone on about "visions" and "missions" that have no relation to external reality and facts (Te). Use of logic is more geared towards finding reasons to avoid revising concepts or changing his mind than actually considering all available new evidence. Expat 10:10, 11 January 2008 (GMT)
1) Saying I'm "too focused" on superid functions is really a stretch of an explanation. What evidence is there that such a thing could even occur? If there is evidence, of what kind is there and is there enough of it to make that claim with a high degree of confidence? I will treat this as nothing but an ad hoc hypothesis on your part unless there's compelling evidence to suggest otherwise. And you say *I* don't know Socionics theory?
2) Zeia and Sarah are ILI and there is nothing to suggest otherwise other than you thinking they are my groupies. If Krae and raisonpure are my mirrors, then why they do they both say they distinctly feel supervised by me and intimidated? Granted, I don't think intertype relations predict with 100% accuracy what interaction any two people will have, but I do regard them as significant trends to consider in weighting the probability of someone being a given type. The fact that 2 people who would be my Mirrors if I were EIE, firmly say that I Supervise them makes the suggestion of EIE quite unlikely.
3) Jadae is EIE and if anyone would astutely observe us, they would see major differentiation between the two of us, to a degree that renders the likelihood of me being EIE quite unlikely. If that's not good enough for you, compare the difference between Kristiina and I. Kristiina is more like Jadae than I am.
4) Ask Herzy or any other established SLEs I've talked to if they feel like I'm their Activity partner. On that same note, ask any other established IEI if they feel any Mirror relation to me.
A waste of time; your established SLEs and IEIs do not correspond to any of mine. i have a fair amount of respect for the simplicity with which herzy is able to apply socionics, and my guess is that she would mostly ignore me (and would certainly not to take the time to read through this entire discussion and make an educated response) if i asked her. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:24, 11 January 2008 (GMT)
Herzy is not SLE? Raisonpure and krae are not IEI? What about Baby? ScarlettLux? What people DO you consider IEI? Dynamicism 00:55, 12 January 2008 (GMT)
ftr, herzy is SLE; read what i wrote. i don't know either krae or raisonpure enough to know their types, although i suspect that krae is IEI or EIE. baby is IEI. scarlettlux is IEI or EIE. do you really want me to ask them? suppose they said they felt supervised. what would that actually accomplish? in order to say that you are supervised, you need to have understand your type, your polr, why it is your polr, and what behaviors in others reflect it. in order to adequately explain to me why they are supervised, they'd need to do a lot more than say that you intimidate them, or else i would throw their evidence out as subjective and lacking in understanding of socionics, or, depending on the individual, inconclusive for lack of justification. this would not necessarily require a lengthy explanation, but it would need to be one that makes sense according to the legitimate experience of the information elements as i see them. ftr, all of these people (except baby, whose views on socionics i don't know very well at all, but he does seem IEI) have demonstrated a sufficient lack of capacity to understand socionics to me for me to take their word for anything. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:17, 12 January 2008 (GMT)
Lol, no you don't need to ask all of them if they feel supervised by me. But correct me if I'm wrong here... you seem to say that, in order for someone's opinion on their intertype relation to be considered valid, both parties involved would have been extremely well-versed in Socionics? I don't think that's necessary at all. If Socionics is a realistic theory, then the intertype relation patterns should be readily observed in the interactions of (most but not all) pairs of people... regardless of their individual level of Socionics knowledge. Subjective accounts could be given by 1 or both persons, assuming at least 1 is typed correctly, and provided the descriptions were sufficient in detail then they could be assessed by someone who's actually knowledgeable enough in Socionics. And the intertype relation that's present ought to be able to be inferred by the assessor based on what the person(s) said in their account, all without the pair needing any real Socionics-specific expertise whatsoever. Better yet, the assessor themselves would just ask the specific sorts of questions to get the specific sorts of answers they needed in order to make a reliable determination on the intertype relation present. This is comparable to what happens if someone is ill and goes to a doctor. That someone doesn't need any knowledge of medicine to describe their symptoms to a doctor. And a skilled doctor can make reliable diagnoses on many different things (assuming it's not something that would require a lab test, etc.), purely on basis of the subjective report given by patient. So yeah, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that intertype relations could be "diagnosed," where the "symptoms" present in the relation are described and a determination is then made. Now I do agree with you - it's not enough that two suspected IEIs say they're "intimidated" by me and think I'm their Supervisor. Even so, assuming they are IEIs, one should anticipate largely positive relations with their mirror and certainly not a feeling of "Supervisory intimidation." It would be helpful maybe if raisonpure could describe that further, and/or if there was a general consensus among IEIs that they had similar sentiments towards me. Anyone want to offer input? Dynamicism 21:25, 14 January 2008 (GMT)
yeah, if an IEI (by my personal estimation) described you not in any socionics terms at all in a great deal of depth which made it seem like they were averse to your    , then I would consider that legitimate. it looks to me like the only person that we both agree on as a likely IEI is baby, and i don't want to drag him or anybody else into this rather esoteric and ridiculous debate unless he legitimately wants to share his opinions. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:00, 14 January 2008 (GMT)
5) My concept of Ni is not more like "Beta version of Ni and Ti." That is nothing but another ad hoc hypothesis on your part stated WITHOUT any evidence *whatsoever*. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Beta Ni and Gamma Ni differ to the great extent that you are personally stating. My concept of Ni is Ni. IF you actually knew what a Gamma was, you would see that Gammas possess very similar manifestations of Ni as Betas.
Meaningless. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:24, 11 January 2008 (GMT)
Expat made a claim with no substantive evidence, that is far from meaningless. I already stressed before what my concept of Ni is in my talk page and my conceptual definition of Ni is in agreement with Socionics authors. What's truly meaningless here is any claim that my concept of Ni is merely just "Beta version of Ni and Ti." That is the claim I addressed, and that claim remains perfectly meaningless. Dynamicism 00:55, 12 January 2008 (GMT)
I don't know what socionics authors you're referring to (i'll check in a minute to see if you specified any), but half of them have their heads up their ass. and as you've quasi-argued, anything that socionics authors have written is far less important than what you observe IRL. if i recall your understanding of Ni correctly, it basically referred to a lot of legitimately     concepts, but with excessive emphasis on things like "dynamic descriptions of abstract processes" (as if you understood what pop-psychogibberish like that meant)
Actually the concept of Ni I use is described on Rick's site here and in his summary on the book Semantics of Information Elements. I don't see anything about that being Beta Ni+Ti. Did you not read the site niffweed? It says clearly on there under the description of Ni: "abstract processes of fields" and "intangible connections between processes separated in time and space: sense of when things might happen, patterns of events, abstract representations of processes." I find it immensely agreeable because it matches with what I've observed IRL. And yes, I do understand exactly what it means. Nor I don't see anything intrinsically difficult about comprehending a notion like this. Do you not understand it? If you don't understand your own supposed base function, I don't see how you can be ILI. Especially if you think it's "pop-psychogibberish" lol... Dynamicism 21:25, 14 January 2008 (GMT)
actually, you're getting into some interesting territory, at least on a personal level. for a long time i wasn't sure if i was ILI or LII, and these kinds of     definitions were a big problem area. honestly, some of these definitions do make me think that i'm not an     type (although looking at the bigger picture its very hard for me to see myself as almost anything else. (incidentally, you might also be interested to look at this relatively recent type thread, in which joy makes a case for my being ESI. it's an interesting conjecture and it might give you a glimpse into me, if you're even slightly interested). anyway, i basically found a fair amount of what came with Ni leading to be highly appropriate and accurate, but ive never been able to understand where some of this stuff about "intangible connections between processes separated in space and time" is coming from at all. i am more easily able to see the connections between     and caution, hesitation, skepticism, and of the sort of non-    philosophical ideologism, which apply well to me. for some of these areas of Ni, i've just sort of ignored them because i've never really understood them (understanding processes in time is not something that i would instinctively identify with myself, but it doesnt fall under this category either). however, there are other examples where i can't see why this shit is even considered remotely legitimate. as examples, a descriptor like "abstract processes of fields" or "dynamic descriptions of abstract processes" is meaningless mumbo-jumbo. do you know what a "dynamic description" or a "process of [a] field" is? this is terminology that cannot be applied to any actual, real-life happenstance and is     bullshit at its max. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:17, 14 January 2008 (GMT)
Again, you won't believe this, but     is not psychic and cannot foretell the future.
You mean Ni doesn't make me Nostradamus? Darn, heh. Seriously, where have I said that Ni can predict the future? Hmm, right, it seems I'm not claiming anything like that, am I? Dynamicism 21:25, 14 January 2008 (GMT)
What I have observed, however, is that the beta quadra seems to place a greater emphasis on the artistic or spiritual aspect of     (look at somebody like Salvador Dalí). Basically the actual ability to see what's going on behind the shadows is very Ni, but with betas it tends to have a more     and     oriented aspect to it,
Yeah, I've been exposed to enough of that Beta Ni before, and I agree what what you're saying. I'm actually not like that much. Dynamicism 21:25, 14 January 2008 (GMT)
in that in many people it seems to manifest as a robot-like idiocy (see hitta, who is the perfect example of an Ni-Ti cross). in hitta in particular, the Ni is very obvious if you watch his videos, and his statements do reflect what i think is one of the most important Ni concepts, which is the general unity of all concepts and ideas (this might be an example of where beta and gamma Ni differ due to the Te/Ti divide), but whenever he comes across some new Ti rule that he can think of, he immediately adopts it because of its logicality rather than actually finding what is going on. in many beta NF types this seems to be the rule, and many of them seem to think they are omniscient when they clearly are not; this is a result of Ti attempts to explain the world around them. it is for this reason that they think     is some psychic, all-knowing function, where in fact they are ignoring the     information to help them explain the world all around them.
Okay seriously: hitta is a fucking retard who talks about things he doesn't understand AT ALL because he thinks it sounds cool and deep and intelligent to say. It's not Ni, for the same reason Ezra is not Se. It's just some lousy pretense of words that he likes the sound of because he thinks it makes him something he isn't. I rabidly HATE hitta and I've despised his existence ever since the first time I saw him utter a line of text. I go into a rage whenever I remember how stupid he is. I've despised him more than anyone else on these forums, even Joy lol. And he's LII as hell of the worst possible kind IMO, there is absolutely NO NO NO Se/Ni in there I swear to fuck. Ugggghh why, why WHY does hitta exist?! Oh... and yeah, I know what you mean about some dumb-Betas going around thinking they're psychic and in touch with divine forces of all-powerful knowing and such. I'm not like that either. Dynamicism 21:25, 14 January 2008 (GMT)
i might agree with you if i had only seen hitta superficially, but his video is the epitome of leading     +    . the entire content of the video (and, i emphasize, this video only) is completely correct philosophically but also completely obvious (to me at least). also, look at some of his recent threads (such as this one), which basically criticize the entire forum for trashing his ideas, opposing change and creativity, and restricting his freedom of ideas. all of which are insane ideas to begin with, but which effectively exemplify the beta viewpoint of     with a great deal of emphasis not on facts and legitimate information, but on     and the oppressive "atmosphere" of the surrounding environment. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:31, 14 January 2008 (GMT)
That was really badly explained. Sorry. Preparing to be bashed mercilessly. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:40, 12 January 2008 (GMT)
Lol, it's fine. It brought up some points that needed clarifying I think. Dynamicism 21:25, 14 January 2008 (GMT)
I'm not sure about some of your phrasing, or the usefulness of using hitta as an example of anything; having said that, the essence of what you described is pretty much my own view. I would only add, "Ti attempts to explain the Ni world around them".Expat 12:20, 14 January 2008 (GMT)
why is hitta a bad example? i think he's the clearest example there is of Ni+Ti, given that he very obviously demonstrates a strong preference and aptitude in both of those functions. do you have a better example from the forum/community? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:31, 14 January 2008 (GMT)
Oh, I think hitta is indeed the clearest example of that phenomenon; but for the purpose of making a case regarding something that you can apply to others, not so good, because he's not a "typical" representative of a type. I see the same trends (but to a far more "normal" degree) in Kioshi, for instance. Expat 09:49, 15 January 2008 (GMT)
I've seen something for awhile about Beta Ti/Ni, where I think it often screws up both the Ti and Ni in a way, in many of them at least. I can see how it works in my EIE father, SLE sister, and some of the Betas I've had as friends. There's a better to put it I think than "Ti attempts to explain the Ni world around them." That sounds like more of the new agey kook ones I occasionally see around. Dynamicism 21:25, 14 January 2008 (GMT)
6) Where have I droned about visions and missions? I may have stressed the importance of having vision and a sense of personal mission, as I believe a person needs to have both imagination and a direction in life that makes them feel purposeful. Like they have an individual stake in the world and that what they do really matters. What's so wrong with that? That is not a POV solely limited to Beta Quadra. And it's hardly anything I "drone" and. And quit with the condescending verbage. If you're going to do that, do it at me personally, not to an audience. It's low and disgusting to deride someone to an audience instead of saying it to them personally.
actually this is a perspective i would strongly associate with beta and hardly at all with gamma. why would an    /    valuing quadra be interested in "a direction in life that makes them feel purposeful?" isn't that kind of vague for a quadra whose motivations are, in essence, related to relationships, ethics, and    -related "business?" Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:24, 11 January 2008 (GMT)
Relationships, ethics, and    -related "business" are not mutually exclusive to "a direction in life that makes them feel purposeful." Nor is there anything to suggest "purposeful direction in life" is solely an aspiration restricted to the domain of Beta Quadra. Dynamicism 00:55, 12 January 2008 (GMT)
You're actually sort of right. I'm not explaining this very well. According to my explanations, there is no evidence to support this. I'll try to hammer this out: I dislike descriptions of the gamma quadra as excessively business (as defined above, in a     sense) and goal-oriented, but the best way that I know how to explain this is to refer to that. Basically beta is the quadra that places the most importance in a "spiritual" (here, extended to mean the above) direction. The gamma quadra, with     and    , can take a more result-oriented, hard work sort of approach. With    , it stands to reason that gamma would view the beta sense of spirituality, direction, and purpose as kind of meaningless unless it produced tangible, provable, and concrete results for     to    -ize. This is basically supported by my observations IRL. I think it is what you have noticed too, only you call any result-oriented or Fi-oriented approach delta (diana, expat, etc.) because you don't understand what how to differentiate quadra values. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:26, 12 January 2008 (GMT)
I dislike the excessive descriptions of Gamma quadra like that too, but I know what you're getting at. I can't say as though I place more emphasis on the "spiritual direction." I like results+meaning in life. Honestly most "typical Beta outlooks" in life seem rather... empty to me. Like there's interesting points to them at times, but overall I can never really relate. Just not my thing. And I don't call Expat and Diana Delta because they're result and Fi oriented. Nor have I said or would I say that any approach like that is Delta. Dynamicism 21:25, 14 January 2008 (GMT)
You said that a) you sort of understood where I was coming from. You then stated that b) the gamma description applied to you and that c) you like meaning and direction in life, which is a facet of the beta quadra, as described extensively above. So tell me, oh great master, how have I erred in interpreting your words? How do you reconcile these three logically exclusive and contradictory ideas? Never mind, I see that this is not exactly what you said. Nonetheless, the point remains, and the question becomes, how do you reconcile the apparent application of the beta quadra to your personality with your identification with the gamma quadra, if you agree at all with my differentiations between the quadras? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:42, 14 January 2008 (GMT)
7) What available new evidence? Show me some, please! Expat seriously, if there's one thing you dearly need to learn in life, it's that your personal opinions and personal theory-revisions that you subjectively invent are NOT evidence. You never back up the Socionics claims you make with any actual substantive evidence, so it should be no wonder to you that I would dismiss these things you say and pay them no heed whatsoever. I don't care how knowledgeable you think you are, I don't care how knowledgeable other people think you are. It doesn't give you license to re-manufacture the fundaments (this is what I don't do) of Socionics theory according to the dictates of your own personal agenda. And I'm appalled at how stubbornly and close-mindedly you do so against all facts, evidence, reason, and realistic sensibility which are all opposed to what you dogmatically propound. Dynamicism 18:37, 11 January 2008 (GMT)
You have given no reason other than your bizarre assertions that "gammas possess very similar manifestations of Ni as betas" or that "jadae and i are very different" or that "my concept of Ni is Ni." these assertions prove nothing and suggest that you have no clue. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:24, 11 January 2008 (GMT)
You must be a fucking idiot then. I gave many reasons besides point 3) and the last sentence of point 5). Please refer back to and carefully read points 1), 2), 4), 6), 7), and the remainder of 5). In the future, why don't you try addressing the entirety of what people have actually said instead of cherry-picking statements in isolation, making a rude remark to the person about them and then pretending like you've refuted anything. You've refuted nothing, shut the fuck up and try again. Furthermore, instead of being the moronic grouch that you are all the time and simply criticizing people with ad hominems, how about demonstrating what knowledge you supposedly possess and saying something intelligent and constructive - you might like it! If you can't, please fuck off. And I will just continue to conclude that you know jack shit. BTW, what you're doing is exactly of what Expat tried to say about me, "Use of logic is more geared towards finding reasons to avoid revising concepts or changing his mind than actually considering all available new evidence." That's *exactly* what you do.
Now, in reference to point 3), I simply invited people to contrast Jadae and I if they wish to see how much of a correspondence or difference there is between us. Comparing a person of unknown type to a person of established known type is a useful instrument for helping to decide what type the unknown could be. I think that's part of purpose of this consensus list, right? In reference to the last sentence of point 5) that you have singled out, I have already shared on my talk page in response to Expat, what my concept of Ni is. Neither you or Expat disputed what my concept of Ni is, nor has anyone else. If you want to dispute it, you might as well take that issue up with Socionics authors, because that's what my conceptual understanding of Ni is based on. Do I need to waste time finding you evidence and making you look like a bigger ass than you've already made of yourself, or shall we avoid that? Dynamicism 00:44, 12 January 2008 (GMT)
Sigh. I actually agree with point 3. I have nothing else to say to you. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:55, 12 January 2008 (GMT)

Folks, it looks like this is going to be one close race! Get out your binoculars... EIE is edging up on SLE and LIE, who are running neck to neck! --Admin 19:25, 11 January 2008 (GMT)

Damn, look at how much more awesome that place was when I was around. Dynamicism 21:25, 14 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Yeah, upon further consideration, I think I'm going to change my "vote" to EIE, at least for the time being, due to reasons I specified in that thread. ----Joy 23:54, 13 January 2008 (GMT)
~*Fart*~ Dynamicism 21:25, 14 January 2008 (GMT)
  • You know, I think I remember now why I thought that a Fi PoLR was less likely than a Si PoLR when I posted that thread (it's been so long since I actually interacted with him that I had forgotten)... He doesn't seem to have any question as to who his friends and his allies are, nor does he have any shyness about trying to recruit people to his "side". SLE's may show lack of regard for Fi without realizing it, but they don't have the confidence in their understanding of (not to mention their ability to manipulate) who is friend and who is foe that Ashton appears to. And I think the reason I thought that a Si PoLR was more likely was because of the way he played "chemist" with supplements to "cheat" (in regards to not resting as much as he should or something along those lines). I vaguely remember thinking he lacked that natural balance that sensory types seem to maintain without effort. ----Joy 00:04, 14 January 2008 (GMT)
That's true, I don't have an Fi PoLR!  :D Yes, I don't have any question as to who my friends are, sure. If I had questions about someone being my friend... then why would they be my friend?! I'm not comfortable with hazy relationships, I like clear and definite bonds. I don't go "recruiting." And wtf@you accusing anyone of "manipulation" hahahaha. Ohhh the hypocrisy! The projection! Ahhh it's too much! dsfjkesfd. Get a grip, I lead nothing and no one, nor would I want to be anyone or anything's leader. If somebody happens to agree with what I say, awesome, but there is no "siding" going on lol. Socionix is it's own thing, and I just post there. And yes, to hell with sleep. Dynamicism 21:25, 14 January 2008 (GMT)
Yeah, EIE does indeed make more sense than SLE. ----Joy 18:49, 16 January 2008 (GMT)

When I refer to "Beta Ni+Ti", I am referring to the fact that only Beta, and Beta alone, has both Ni and Ti together as quadra values. I could equally refer to "    blocked with    " or "    not supported by    " or whatever. I prefer to say "Ni+Ti" because I think it is more to the point; but it amounts to exactly the same thing. And the concept of quadra values acting together is very much part of classical socionics. It is described in the quadra articles in socionics.org, socioscope.com; rather extensively in Rick's original site, and in this wiki, in the "quadras" section. There are many writings about those concepts, by several socionists, and not of the obscure, near-crackpot variety such as some of Gulenko's. It is plain, classical stuff. It's also what gives meaning to the very concept of quadras, and to things like the quadra mottos, common quadra group behavior, etc etc: the common quadra values -              for Beta, and              for Gamma - explain those. Now, even the old-fashioned socionics descriptions by function, when describing, say, the Ni in IEIs and Ni in ILIs, describe different things. Indirectly what they are saying is that the "IEI" Ni is affected by the other quadra values, mainly by Fe, and Te in the case of "ILI" Ni. This is what I mean by "Beta Ni+Ti": I could equally have said "Beta Ni blocked with Fe" as it means the same thing in the end since Fe always goes together with Ti. All of the above is basic classical socionics. In fact, even Augusta touched on this, extensively, when trying to make sense of the Reinin dichotomies (especially when trying to explain Aristocracy/Democracy). Now we can of course disagree on what all of this means, and whether or not specific things are indeed due to Beta values or not; or even whether the whole concept is valid or not. But to suggest that this is all "my" invention, as if I had taken it all of nowhere just because I want to, is simply to display one's ignorance and unwillingness to check why I and others find it natural to look at it from that angle. Even the simplest socionics descriptions, when describing (say), the Ni in LIEs and the Ni in EIEs, see different manifestations. Or why Alpha Fe is different from Beta Fe. And on and on. (BTW, I wrote the bulk of those quadra descriptions, but they are not different in essence from what is described in Rick's site and the other sources I mentioned)Expat 10:49, 14 January 2008 (GMT)

Yes I know about the Beta Ni+Ti thing - I've been calling it the same thing (instead of "Ni blocked with Fe") for a long time because I think it's more to the point too, and the source of the real blockage in these two values. I know you didn't make that up. I agree that Ti and Ni mutually modulate the expression of each other in a way unique to Beta and I never disagreed on that. But where I think you're fabricating on is all the things you make an ascription of to being caused by the Ni+Ti blockage, that was all. I think you do it to a point where it turns Ni into something else entirely, because yes Ni as it manifests in Beta is different from Gamma, but it's not *that* different. The Ni of both should at least still be recognizable to each other as essentially being the same function. The accepted interpretations of Ni (like what I linked on Rick's site) should be fundamental enough in describing what Ni is/does, that it fits both quadras. Which I think it is, whereas it seems like sometimes you disagree on that. Or maybe you've misinterpreted me joking that "Ni = psychic ability wOoOoOo!" or something lol. That's not my view at all. I agree on Beta Fe being different from Alpha Fe too. I read your wikisocion entries on Quadras just now and I read Rick's site. I see some as true, some as not so much true, and others as being entirely situational. I think as it stands all of the Quadra descriptions have been reduced to too many cursory and exagerrated stereotypes and that it's a facet of Socionics that desperately needs better fleshing out here. I don't really see any of those descriptions being much applicable to nearly any group of people in reality except some narrowly-defined, very specific subsets of people that hardly anyone would ever encounter in life. There needs to be a better understanding made available as far as I'm concerned. Dynamicism 21:25, 14 January 2008 (GMT)
i think that this is one of the major points of disagreement between ashtonian and legitimate socionics. how would you describe your version of the quadras? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:42, 14 January 2008 (GMT)
  • for what it's worth Ashton is way good people IMO. Once I got to know him he turned out to be really easy to talk to about stuff. Granted if he's in arguement or lecture mode I pretty much skip it or tune it out (but I do that with pretty much everyone). Talking to him on the chat never gets old though. It's a shame that some people are so stuck on a few quirks of his personality because there's a whole lot more to him than that junk. For the record... I'm not gunna give him a type, cause I don't know. So there :P Bionicgoat 14:12, 15 January 2008 (GMT)
I wholeheartedly agree that ashton is good people (: adding my vote for LIE. Glamourama 22:30, 28 February 2008 (GMT)
  • Well, I've enjoyed reading this debate. I once thought Ashton ESTp, for mainly superficial reasons. If you read his writing, the Ni should be blatantly clear through the metaphors and his focus on the essence of the issue. Also, if he was ESTp, he would be a Ti subtype, and I dont see near as much emphasis on Ti as would be seen in that type. He actually seems to just let it slip under the radar, using his Ni to grasp and explain issues. From experience I can say he is not my dual. I feel the Te supervision in conversations, but also identify with many of his analogies and insights, due to the common ground - Ni. my vote: LIE The preceding unsigned comment was added by -strrrng-

[edit] aut0

  • Current consensus: Image:Extroverted_logic.gif Image:Introverted_sensing.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): SLI -- aut0 00:40, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
1 4 1

[edit] Discussion Area

  • I do think he's LSE, but given that he's not all that notable or constant of a poster at the16types, this typing is 100% based on his type thread, in which he said a number of things that appeared to betray a delta ST perspective. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:22, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I think aut0 is EIE. I have no other reason to think that besides gut feeling. He looks like I imagine male EIE to look like. This is a feeling I got more than once. Once I was looking at a picture of a man and I immediately typed him as EIE, and then I looked closer and realized he looks familiar and then realized it's aut0. I had already typed aut0 as EIE based on VI. Kristiina 20:48, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Gee, you really sound like you've thought this out thoroughly. You should win some kind of prize for thoroughness. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:12, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
  • In all fairness she made it perfectly clear she was relying on feeling. I've read far more insane typings than this. Aut0 00:07, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
Sure, but that doesn't mean this one is any good. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:12, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I am not sure what to make of aut0. I see him as trying to make a lot of fun comments towards people on the forum, frequently trying to make people laugh or lift the mood - that appears to be his main use of the forum. If he is LSE, which I am not so sure he is, he is definitely Si subtype. But he seems to have a lot of Fe to him - perhaps that is just because he is still feeling out the forum, I'm not sure. UDP 03:20, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Add another vote to LSE FDG 09:09, 6 January 2008 (GMT)FDG
  • i think he's LSE for now. i've considered some other types as well, for good measure, but LSE seems to make the most sense for now. i mean, i see where kriistina is getting the resemblance between you two and all, but ENFj honestly doesn't make much sense right now at all. @UDP -- i highly doubt that making jokes, laughing, and lifting the mood have as much as you think to do with being of a     quadra. i think a lot of types are quite capable of this. implied 16:07, 6 January 2008 (GMT)

Question - who voted LSE? There is one from aut0 himself, and one from someone else? UDP

me Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:48, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I think aut0 is probably an emotivist (pardon the reinin dichotomies). I'm not really sure apart from that. --Tanehem the Necromancer 19:21, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
  • LSE. I trust him enough to come to his own conclusion, and nothing he has said thus far has conflicted with LSE. I've typed him as an LSE on my own typing page (the only LSE on the forum). He gets a vote from me. -- Ezra 17:38, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Just a thought, based on what UDP said. Perhaps he's an ESE. I think the Ne/Si valuing is evident, and earlier on, I saw Se in abundance, but I don't think he values it. --Ezra 18:15, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I've successfully managed to confuse myself, the only thing I'm sure of is that I'm Delta ST. Damn you Diana, Implied, and Sumowrestler for making me wonder why I came off as ISTp. Aut0 00:39, 15 January 2008 (GMT)
  • fug! i wasn't trying to plant the seed of doubt! lol implied 01:46, 15 January 2008 (GMT)
  • liar! Aut0 02:10, 15 January 2008 (GMT)
  • nvm I'm not confused anymore. Back to being confused. lol Aut0 13:47, 16 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I'm SLI Aut0 20:56, 24 January 2008 (GMT)
  • ahaha.  :D implied 00:19, 25 January 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Baby

  • Current consensus: Image:Introverted_intuition.gif Image:Extroverted_ethics.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): IEI -- Baby 01:22, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
6

[edit] Discussion Area

  • Other suggestions I have gotten are EII (from Transigent and formerly Gilly), ILI (from Blaze), and also considered SEI and EIE as possibilities. Of those I think SEI is the most likely alternative to IEI for me, as I have a pretty sensitive     PoLR from what I can tell. Baby 03:03, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Baby appears to be a relatively sterotypical IEI. His posts seem to to be quite polite and I don't believe I've seen a post by him that was overly inflammatory, or if it was, it was quite well-explained. Really comes off as calm and quiet, seems to be a little separated from the pulse of life, (   -base).
He also claims to be 100% sure that SLE's are his duals, and he once made an impassioned lecture (possibly of an     nature) on how he could sense the difference between SLE(his "dual") and LSE(his "conflictor"), and the way he worded it made me feel strongly that those types are indeed his dual and conflictor. Kamangir 03:05, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I think Auvi is IEI. I once thought he was too sane and maybe EIE. His self-descriptions seem to indicate socionic qualities such a s Victim romance style and    -creative. --Tanehem the Necromancer 06:12, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Totally agree on IEI FDG 21:01, 3 January 2008 (GMT)FDG
  • IEI seems like the best option. I could see the case for ILI based on some forum behavior and his videos, and EII might not be out of the question by comparing him to other forum IEIs, but if he says he feels vulnerable to Te, I'm willing to take his word, and he does seem to have Beta values (well-concealed in the guise of gentle intellectual curiosity as they are :P). The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gilly
  • i agree with what gilly just said. baby does come across to me as more logical, but on the other hand, his comments about relationships reflect ethics more than logic. only other option would be EII but i don't get a conflict or supervision vibe from him and i don't think he's extraverted sooooo IEI it is. Blaze 21:02, 7 January 2008 (GMT)

[edit] BLauritson

  • Current consensus: Image:Introverted_intuition.gif Image:Extroverted_logic.gif
  • Self typing/statement (if applicable): ILI BLauritson 20:52, 9 January 2008 (GMT)
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
2

[edit] Discussion Area

this is a pretty weak typing, but i think he's ILI, mostly because he's, in the words of tanehem, sane. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:51, 11 January 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Carla

  • Current consensus: Image:Introverted_logic.gif Image:Extroverted_intuition.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): LII [1] [2] Carla 04:31, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
2

[edit] Discussion Area

LII. Carla definitely shows signs of being     and     valuing in her posts, which narrows it down to Alpha/Delta. Of which, she uses the aforementioned functions to promote and obtain    , which again indicates an Alpha preference. It becomes a bit trickier here as sometimes the "fun" atmosphere of Alpha seems to blur the lines between the types, especially in Alpha group behavior, but she seems to be more    -seeking than    -using (ILE or LII). She has noted before that being online allows her to flex (and practice) the     and    -creatively and to down play     to a much greater degree than she normally does in real life. In short, she has given others very few reasons as to doubt her self-typing, but despite that, I am sure that ILE probably is (and should be) on the back-burner in her mind as a possible distant second type. Logos 01:59, 12 January 2008 (GMT)

i get the definite impression that she's some alpha type. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 17:16, 11 February 2008 (GMT)
Yes. I see no reason to question LII, but no real reason to prefer it over, say, ILE. Expat 17:40, 11 February 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Cracka

  • Current consensus: Image:Extroverted_ethics.gif Image:Introverted_sensing.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): ESE -- Cracka 21:35, 2 January 2008 (PST)
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
6

[edit] Discussion Area

ESE. Likes to promote pleasant and fun     atmosphere using a mix of     and    . Expat 05:04, 4 January 2008 (GMT)

ESE seems like a sure bet. Forum behavior, tales of comedic exploits, clear Alpha orientation...it didn't take long to see that LSE wasn't the right choice. Gilly

ESE - but only because I don't have good reason to say any other type (at this time). From my conversations with him, seems EJ and Si, but I cannot say if he is really Fe > Te at this time. Unlike my ESE room mate, he does not bother me with a great many emotional outbursts or trying to get a rise out of me. UDP 03:25, 6 January 2008 (GMT) PS: However, on the forum, I agree that he acts generally how Expat describes his actions, and as such am ok with ESE typing at this time.

ESE. Ditto Expat and Gilly. --Tanehem the Necromancer 15:42, 6 January 2008 (GMT)

a very tentative ESE bid. certainly    . Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:53, 11 January 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Dee

  • Current consensus: Image:Introverted_sensing.gif Image:Extroverted_ethics.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable):
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
3

[edit] Discussion Area

dee is a veritable mine of alpha    . anybody who can't see that is frankly blind. SEI; if not, ESE. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 18:02, 29 January 2008 (GMT)

I agree; SEI. Not ESE; his "short-term volatility" as Isha called it points toward irrationality. Not all SEIs are like that, of course, but I think ESEs are much less likely to show that trait. Expat 18:11, 29 January 2008 (GMT)

dee is a blatent Irrational to me. Again, the STV Isha speaks of is evident to me. However, I have problems seeing him as an IP. His restlessness is hardly indicative of IP temperament. --Ezra 20:03, 29 January 2008 (GMT)

The way I understand it - and you are welcome to take it with a pinch of salt if you wish - is that the IP and EJ temperament, being both Dynamic, have sort of "interchanges", that is, an EJ person is going to have low-energy IP moments (more so than IJ moments) and an IP person is going to have high-energy EJ moments (more so than EP moments). So dee's sort of "volatile restlessness" is him going into EJ moments fairly frequently; but still behaving irrationally. This may sound opportunistic but I have suggested something like that for some time. This is, however, my own understanding of how it works, so make your own decision on whether you think it makes sense or not. Expat 22:36, 29 January 2008 (GMT)
i'd mostly argue here that he seems pretty "consistently restless." implied 22:48, 29 January 2008 (GMT)

SEI. Fe subtype. Very self-evident, not sure what to say specifically. Very Alpha, lots of Fe going on. I see Ti HA. Definitely no ESE. Dynamicism 01:39, 30 January 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Diana

  • Current consensus: Image:Introverted_ethics.gif Image:Extroverted_sensing.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): ESI -- Diana 01:22, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
7 1

[edit] Discussion Area

It's so obvious to me that Diana is Gamma and ESI in particular that I don't even know where to start. Her relative lack of concern for     concepts and discussions, her willingness and inclination to discuss personal issues and personal impressions of people and situations and unwillingness to compromise on issues she cares about    , her ease with confrontations yet not seeking them for fun -     creative -- this is simplistic and obvious but it's because to me her type is obvious. Expat 11:51, 3 January 2008 (GMT)

I think she's a very     ESI that doesn't have much trouble accessing her Ne at will. She reminds me of my girlfriend in many cases. FDG 21:04, 3 January 2008 (GMT)FDG

  • Voted EII'. She's     but how praytell is she remotely confrontational?! I have absolutely yet to see it in all the time I have been around her. She seems skittish and like she talks behind people's backs a lot. I've heard some of this trickle back my way before that she's never ever said to my face lol. Also there's plenty of stuff she's said about her past / personal life that doesn't need to be brought up here, which very much absolutely diverge from any possibility of her being ESI. I apologize, I'm not trying to be asshole but this makes me sick and people need a reality check. Dynamicism 02:01, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
Questions: do you still think that Bionicgoat is EII? If so, then he and Diana are identicals? That's far more absurd than saying that Kristiina and Jadae are.Expat 05:30, 4 January 2008 (GMT)

What have I said behind your back? What I posted about you on the16types I openly posted over on socionix first. I brought up how you appeared to be Se leading and Ni seeking in the very thread that I later quoted from. At any rate, how would that point towards EII? They're not especially known to be gossipers either. Besides, something posted quite openly on a forum that you had access to is hardly behind your back. I did nothing that you haven't done to me, as you like to use me as an example of an EII at socionix. You're merely stating your opinion, yet when I state mine I'm talking behind your back? Stupid reasoning. Doesn't follow at all. As for my personal life, I don't think you have a whole lot of information on that. Unless someone's been talking behind MY back ;). Diana 04:07, 4 January 2008 (GMT)

Lol no it wasn't the forum stuff, I would never care about something like that. Nor would it constitute talking behind someone's back obviously. Just a few things you'd said to individuals that I later heard about. No, I didn't hear gossip about your personal life (nor would I listen if I could, I think that would be violating). It was some stuff you'd openly said quite awhile back. Dynamicism 04:20, 4 January 2008 (GMT)

Well I don't remember doing that. I'm doubtful that it's quite what whoever passed it along made it out to be. Diana 04:37, 4 January 2008 (GMT)

It wasn't horrible or anything, I guess just struck me as odd more than anything else. I regard you good-natured though, so I don't hold anything against you. Dynamicism 04:48, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
Precisely what I'm talking about about not understanding the functions in too rigid a framework. Confrontational !=     by any measure, especially among creative     types. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:31, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
Well they're claiming she is, so why don't you tell them that.Dynamicism 03:49, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
Try reading my comment instead of assuming you know what I've said before you read it. You might actually be able to follow discussions if you read them. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:58, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
Thank you very much for that completely unnecessary superfluous reminder. I did read what you said. You said confrontational !=    , especially among creative     types. I was wondering why you were addressing that comment solely to me.Dynamicism 04:40, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
i should perhaps rephrase.     is not necessarily confrontational. ah, on second thought, i withdraw the relevance of the observation. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:46, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
I believe I raised this issue first. I did not say or mean that she was "confrontational", I did say and mean that she has "ease with confrontations". Regarding EII, I suggest comparing Diana's stance with Minde and Danielle, who I do think are EIIs. Expat 04:50, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I think taking the time to read the very good ESI socioscope description, as well as keeping in mind that ESIs are still very much Fi dominants and the Se creative plays a secondary role, will outline more the likelihood of her being ESI. ESI's aren't really confrontational unless unhealthy. Thank god!
  • ESI: I had a few good talks with Diana about people and relationships that seem to offer good insight into both of our types. Diana does not seem like someone with Ne creative, and does not seem alpha or beta. I agree with Expat that she seems fairly clearly gamma and ESI. When we spoke about relationships, she was clearly leaning towards an "aggressor" type erotic role, and seemed to show a dislike of the many Si things I talked about, in terms of mutual dependency, and doing things for each other. UDP 14:19, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • ESI. --Joy 23:23, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • i think you're ESI because you're cool. how's that for a well thought out answer? implied 11:37, 10 January 2008 (GMT)
  • ESI per everything above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:53, 11 January 2008 (GMT)

[edit] discojoe

  • Current consensus: none
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): ESI --Discojoe 23:05, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
1 1 3 5

[edit] Discussion Area

  • doubtfully ESI. i think he's logical. refer to discojoe's type. i think raisonpure brings up some pretty good points on his    , and i'm inclined to agree that his logical side is much stronger than any ethical side. aside from reported surface similarities with Diana, i don't entirely buy it. Implied 09:46, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
Are you voting ESI? --Discojoe 18:19, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
not voting ESI, to make it clear. i did want to start a discussion on your type, though. i think niffweed has accounted for my "non-vote" vote. implied 16:25, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I have a really hard time seeing him as an ESI. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ezra
You apparently also have a really hard time signing your posts. --Discojoe 18:21, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
I know, I keep forgetting. -- Ezra 17:45, 7 January 2008 (GMT)

Joy, besides the fact that you live with him, why do you think he's an ESI? -- Ezra 18:16, 5 January 2008 (GMT)

Why would the fact that I live with her make her think I'm ESI? lol. --Discojoe 18:21, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
Because she has hard factual evidence for what kind of person you are, in comparison with everyone else, to whom you are much of a mystery, functionally speaking. -- Ezra 17:45, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
I've not made arguments regarding discojoe's type because his forum behavior is very different from his irl behavior, so effectively explaining why he's ESI would involve discussing aspects of his life that he himself has not shared with this community. And even if I did describe the details of his day to day life, you wouldn't have anything to go on besides what I'm describing. Because I don't expect anyone to simply take my word for it (and because it doesn't matter if people think he's ESI or not), I don't see any reason to make a case for his type. I will say, however, that my understanding of Socionics is based on understanding information elements, the axes, and intertype relations. The intertype relation I understand best is LIE/ESI duality. You can take that for whatever you think it's worth. If you want to learn more about discojoe, read my posts about ESI's. (They're not based solely on him, of course. They're based on him, other ESI's I've known, ESI descriptions, LIE/ESI duality descriptions, and my general understanding of Socionics.) --Joy 21:54, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Also, who voted ESI besides Joy and discojoe? Just curious. -- Ezra 18:16, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
Sorry. My mistake. I counted an ESI self-typing and then two ESI typings within the discussion. Anyway, it's correct now. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 18:29, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
  • From what I can see of him from the forum, definitely a logical type. FDG 09:42, 6 January 2008 (GMT)FDG
    i agree with this. i think ashton has a very valid point with ENTp. i'm really not ready to throw that out. especially the points on    . but for the most part, i think he's a logical subtype SLE. i doubt that he has weak    . since i can't vote for both, i'll stick with SLE for now. perhaps i'll change my mind on this.implied 18:06, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
I agree with the above analysis, so I voted for SLE. --FDG 18:20, 7 January 2008 (GMT)FDG
ah, yeah, i think there was the argument that kim was "supervising" him with    . in any case, i think her ethics are more likely slapping polrs than any     she has. he also seems to v.i. as an ESTp. implied 18:30, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • ILE, Ti subtype. I think Joy just tried to manufacture him into her pseudo-dual. Nobody bought it at first - for good reason. But the echo chamber effect has succeeded in this case and it seems enough people have become believers in him being ESI... this sort of phenomenon never ceases to amaze me lol. Anyway, I think he displays a lot of     and always has, especially in times past. His insults and puns especially seem like very obvious products of    . I've talked to him on chat before and the     is certainly there. He always had a strong emphasis on the use of logic and the demand for logical consistency that is a central feature of most     types. Dynamicism 21:37, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I agree with everyone that I am very logical ;). --Discojoe 04:17, 8 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I don't see the    , which would be necessary for ESI. So I vote for SLE even though I don't have a strong opinion. --Jonathan 00:22, 9 January 2008 (GMT)
  • In order to see his    , and     dual-seeking clearly, you have to interact with him on an individual basis. Then it's very clearly there. I do agree, though, that it's not obvious from a superficial observation. ESI. Rather than whether he is "logical" or not, I think it's more important to see his most natural source of confidence. By the way, I think I am very ethical, thanks. Expat 22:10, 9 January 2008 (GMT)
    yeah, you're "ethical," but i don't think i'd mistake you for     ego block type. in some cases, it's less clear as to whether someone is ethical or logical. not in your own case, i don't think. i see dj's natural source of confidence as logic, as well as yours. i think that thread, particularly, demonstrated that he has strong, confident logic. honestly, i don't know who can type him as ethical based on behavior that no one else sees. implied 11:21, 10 January 2008 (GMT)
    No one ever suggested that you or anyone else should type him based on behavior you've never witnessed. In fact, I believe I specifically said otherwise. ----Joy 12:34, 10 January 2008 (GMT)
Only from how he comes across "publicly", I don't think I'd have seen the ESI, either. I might have thought ILI due to a niffweed-like contempt for idiocy in a Fe-ignoring way, but he's more "aware" of it than niffweed. But of course, everyone should type him according to the evidence you have. Expat 13:57, 12 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Obviously a Ti type. I say ISTj, sensing subtype. Possibly ESTp, but I'm not sure about that. His view of Fi (especially as it applies to himself) is very narrow, and strong Fi is in no way expressed in his forum interactions. Thehotelambush 00:13, 10 February 2008 (GMT)

i find it very hard to see him as an Fe-valuing type. i also find it very hard to see him as an Fi-valuing type. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:42, 10 February 2008 (GMT)

(Btw, I think it is clear that there is no consensus on discojoe's type.) His Fe values come across in all his joke threads and posts. Contrast to Joy, who always brings up some very Important Issue that needs discussing. Thehotelambush 01:28, 10 February 2008 (GMT)

ESI I'll take it from the person who knows him Jimbean.

[edit] Eunice

  • Current consensus: Image:Introverted_ethics.gif Image:Extroverted_intuition.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): EII -- Eunice
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
1 4

[edit] Discussion Area

  • ???: So far with my interaction with Eunice, she seems IJ in terms of calmness and levelness. I am not 100% sure of her type, but right now EII is the front-runner. Not enough information to earnestly say which IJ she appears to be, but does not strike me as beta, or gamma for that matter, and seems more leaning towards delta's subdued nature in terms of Fi. There appears to be no real argument against LII at the time, but there seems a general lean towards Fi, and delta. A recent conversation we had concerning values and movies seemed to show idealism enough for an NF, or at least an Ne valuing type. Again, I'm not sure of anything yet, but EII seems like the best fit at this time. - UDP 05:43, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
IEI. A couple things. She gets along very well with the beta crowd in socionix, and does so fully subscribing to their interpretations. It genuinely seems to me that she doesn't understand recognize any difference is between classical and ashtonian socionics, and wonders why people feel the need to separate themselves. i've talked with her a while back and basically i think that IP temperament is much more likely; i don't see her as a rational type and i don't really see     from her; although she talks about relationships, the videos that she's shared with me seemed to place an emphasis on how she perceived the relationship as proceeding, a very dynamic,     sort of viewpoint. she has a detailed "fantasy" conception of what kind of relationship she would prefer; this is perhaps representative of the fickle sort of desires of IEIs and hardly at all of    . IMO her whole demeanor, for all of the above reasons, is starkly different from the behavior delta NFs such as tereg, slacker mom, and minde. SEI is a very close second choice. EII is not likely at all. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 06:17, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
There is no "Classical Socionics." There is no "Ashtonian Socionics." I'm sick of you running about like some fanatical church inquisitor thinking he's rooting out any non-conformers to the hardline "official doctrine." Give it a fucking rest already. There's just Socionics. If you're going to criticize me, you may as well critize Gulenko and every other contemporary Socionics expert for any of their work since anything new that's been introduced or revised wouldn't be "Classical Socionics" either. Sorry niffweed, but Socionics is far more than just Model A. And there are many different models out there. That I choose to use a different framework that I think explains some aspects of reality about the human psyche better does not make me some sinful heretic. Dynamicism 22:50, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
"Ashtonian socionics" is a term which reflects the fact that you don't understand the information elements. It means nothing else. Honestly, I don't even think about model A as all that much of an important part of socionics. Socionics is based on the information elements, and you don't understand them. Now why are you wasting my time? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:07, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
No niffweed, you're the one that doesn't understand them lol. But yes go ahead and continue wasting your time thinking you do. Dynamicism 08:07, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
Hmm, those are good points. I'm not sure what to make of Eunice. I probably ought to take away my consensus vote, but I'm not sure how to do that. I'll change my EII to "???" I guess.
Could you explain what you mean by "she has a detailed "fantasy" conception of what kind of relationship she would prefer; this is perhaps representative of the fickle sort of desires of IEIs and hardly at all of    ", Niffweed? UDP 07:55, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
IEIs are often associated with fickleness and with wanting strange things. I didn't make this up myself; it's probably an association made on some forum threads or perhaps on Rick's IEI celebrities page. By how it applies to eunice i basically mean that she has a detailed preconceived idea of what she wants, even though (IMO) it's probably a fantasy and not really correct. i don't see an EII having this kind of a perspective. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 17:29, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
Idealism is not restricted to IEIs imo. Moreover, I don't think I have demonstrated much Ni and Fe yet to justify that I'm an IEI. I believe that my difference with tereg, slackermom and minde (who are coincidentally Fi subtypes) could be due to the possibility that I am a Ne subtype. I don't care whether I have adhere to either "classical socionics" or "ashtonian socionics". I'm only interested in theories which match what I can observe in real life. Eunice
Well, that's a very thorough description of nothing at all. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:47, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
So are your stubborn criticisms of matters which you have no understanding of in your deluded fit of reactionary-ism. Understand that Socionics is not a uni-model theory and get over it. Did you know niffweed, that even most scientific theories have+use multiple different models to explain the same things and different models get touted by different factions within the discipline as the "the best"? Many times they're even used in conjunction with one another because they happen to explain some aspects of reality better when used in a complementary way. No, I'm sure you didn't know that, otherwise you'd be smart enough to not act in the way you are acting. It's not rational. Dynamicism 22:50, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
There have been things that suggested EII, and in a type thread she had awhile back, that's the conclusion I came to, personally at that time. I haven't given her type much thought since then, so examples are failing me right now. But definitely a Ne subtype, not Fi if she is EII. Diana 03:04, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Voted EII, Ne subtype. I've talked to her for a bit before. Strongly     and     valuing, the way in which she speaks of both is strongly compelling to me as evidence for her possessing them as quadra values. Has more of the practical, grounded orientation of Delta. She's just not Beta at all, doesn't have their penchant for drama and flair that I see more than typical in the IEIs. Plus she is Ixxj to me... very goal-oriented and states that she strongly prefers stability+security, to pick a direction and stay committed to it, not change her life path around a lot. Dynamicism 22:50, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
  • INFj per Dynamicism. Thehotelambush 01:42, 10 February 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Expat

  • Current consensus: Image:Extroverted_logic.gif Image:Introverted_intuition.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): LIE Expat 15:27, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
8 2

[edit] Discussion Area

  • The above is an example of a template of how this sort of a model might work. Assuming Expat wishes to make some commentary, he should feel free to do so. I have picked him as an example because most people probably agree that he's LIE. I, for one, say LIE. Niffweed17 21:53, 28 September 2007 (BST)


  • I am also inclined to agree with LIE. He has a tendency on the forum to correct the factual errors of others even if it is "annoying" (   -leading/   -role); will "ramble" (in his words) for literally hours (yes) on subjects of his interest, including mostly factual data interspersed with his opinions in a way which is mostly unstructured or only very loosely structured, seems unable to be concise ("I can't talk long" = 30 minutes) (   -leading/   -ignoring); a tendency to try to be witty/crack jokes/etc. but can't sustain it and in any case is usually too subtle and annoys people who think he's serious (   -role), vindictive and sometimes even cruel towards forum members he dislikes as people (Phaedrus/smilingeyes/etc.) (   +    but in a sort of "ugly" and self-righteous way which indicates they are not his strengths); and a bunch of other things. --Tanehem 03:15, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
I don't think I'm "unable" to be concise, the "I can't talk long" thing is more of a Ni + Fi DS thing -- that is, I am aware that time is running out in advance, but dislike cutting it suddenly, unless I really have to, of course. Expat 12:37, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
Ok, I misattributed the latter, and probably misrepresented you in the spirit of not taking up so much space of niffweed's userpage. Sorry. :\ --Tanehem 12:40, 2 January 2008 (GMT)


  • IMO Expat is clear LSE. His emphasis on     +     is certainly there, I find him quite coherent and easy to read. But he lacks comfort with     to the point that I can't imagine him being at ease around an SEE or ESI. I don't see much     going on here either. His manner of speech doesn't incorporate the usual     peculiarities as described here [3] in Rick's notes on the book "Semantics of Information Elements." He also suggests more     than is typical for an LIE. I remember some comments awhile back he made about liking to relax with good wine and cigars - not that this comment means much in isolation, but the impression of it struck me as peculiar for an LIE. I would say that he embodies more of a Delta outlook, which is self-evident in his very positive interactions between other Deltas on the 16types board. His lack of concision that Taneham points out is also not common for LIEs. Dynamicism 07:03, 2 January 2008 (GMT)Dynamicism
Which raises the questions: (1) Why should a LSE "lack comfort" with Se - their 8th function? It's like saying that an ESI "lacks comfort" with Si, or an ILI with Ti, or a SEE with Fe. (2) Why should a LSE "lack more concision" than a LIE? (3) Who are those "Deltas"? The Deltas I interact more regularly with there are Minde (EII) and Kim (IEE). I do get along with EIIs, but they are the LIE's semi-duals - so shouldn't it be positive? As for Kim, it seems to me that Dynamicism himself had positive interactions with her for quite some time - so from this argument, he's Delta too. The other IEE is Rick, but our interactions are mostly limited to socionics, even as I do like him. (4) How often have I even mentioned Si-related stuff since I got active in such discussions? The wine and cigar things don't mean much in isolation, indeed. How often have I even mentioned this kind of thing? Those who would argue LSE for me have to argue FOR LSE, rather than just against LIE, and using arguments that are indeed exclusive to LSE as opposed to LIE. Expat 12:29, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
(I have deleted what I said about EIIs and their "8th function" - it was sheer nonsense - I was too tired). We can apply that to IEEs such as Kim and Slacker Mom, and ask whether they have "lack of comfort" with Fe. Expat 00:23, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
Further on "Deltas", first, to type people through their interactions with others is problematic because then we have to make sure those others are correctly typed. But, leaving that aside, which types would have clearly different relationships with LSE and LIE? I can think of essentially three: ILI and SLI, and IEI/SEI their mirrors/supervisors/supervisees, and illusion/contrary, LSI/LII; followed by their quasi-identicals and of benefit/activity, that is, ILE, IEE, SLE and SEE. The others - dual/semi-dual (ESI/EII), comparative/identical (LSE/LIE) and super-ego/look-alike (ESE/EIE) are too similar to differentiate between LSE and LIE. It would have to be demonstrated, for instance, that my relationships with LIIs are better than with LSIs, and so on and so forth. To state blankly "Deltas" will not do, unless it could demonstrated that there are a lot of SLIs among those. Further, I wonder which ILIs would claim they supervise me, and in which fashion. Expat 13:11, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
I'd say Expat pretty much owned your ass there, Dynamicism. Ezra 16:01, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
Well, I don't know you hardly at all and I'm not sure what your intentions are, whether you are being a dick or fucking around in jest or what the deal is here. Lemme know so I can respond appropriately, thanks :D Dynamicism 15:45, 3 January 2008 (GMT)

Hi, my response is here Not sure what to do with it, it's way too long to be posted on here.Dynamicism 15:45, 3 January 2008 (GMT)

  • LIE became very much clear to me after meeting Expat in person. Before, I believed him to be LIE; having planned a meeting with him and seen him in person, I could not imagine any other type. -- Gilly 16:32, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • LIE. The real-life interaction dynamics completely match LIE-IEE who share some intellectual interests. Which is, he draws     out of me, and I like his    , in addition to general knowledge on different subjects. Why LIE over LSE? He is not the kind of person who creates recreational situations where people just do enjoyable things together like, say, jog, walk around and soak in nature or city life, watch movies together, etc. Yes, he has the pub thing down, but that is just a backdrop for discussion of ideas and knowledge. My interaction with LSEs tends to take a "how-to" route where we discuss specific things we are doing and plans we have and talk about ways to improve them. --Admin 19:03, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
Think it over, Rick -- there are suggestions that LIEs never do things like having a beer at a pub.Expat 19:09, 4 January 2008 (GMT)


  • LIE: for many reasons as above. However, I do not interact with him enough to say that I know very well what his type is. Based on what I hear, and what I see on the forum, LIE seems like a good call. UDP 09:53, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
  • LIE. --Joy 23:26, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Even though an ENTj couldn't possibly enjoy the occasional cigar or pub visit, I'm going with ENTj. --Discojoe 04:22, 8 January 2008 (GMT)
  • LSE Very apparent lately, especially in the way he handles confrontation. Zeia 19:54, 10 January 2008 (EST)
In what ways does he handle confrontation that demonstrate LSE. and don't simply copy/rephrase at what ashton wrote, in addition to it being bullshit, it doesn't demonstrate that you have a mind of your own and aren't simply following ashton blindly (which is honestly what i want to see; i won't lie. i admit up front that my reasons for pursuing this are not remotely related to expat's type.) Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:16, 11 January 2008 (GMT)
I'm pretty sick of the me blindly following Ashton hoopla that seems to come out everytime I post. I'll just copy and paste what I typed on the forum. "Expat is a pretty clear LSE to me as well, I wont bother explaining because Ashton tends to sum up my thoughts well enough. But, I will say that if you look at the way he responds to pressure and to confrontation, he brings out exactly what's familiar and instictive to him, finding reasons to say that he's better and more deserving of "the gift of correctness" than anyone else. It's very much like the annoying parental argument of, "I have more experience, so I must be right". Very very delta themed, and very apparent in his responses to Ashton. Also, the artful dodging is almost as apparent, when a question is asked that he dosnt know the answer to, the topic is switched or something strong and dominant comes out to try to derail the conversation. It's extremely sad to know that he dosnt even realize he does this lately..."
  • The above is an example of a template of how this sort of a model might work. Assuming Expat wishes to make some commentary, he should feel free to do so. I have picked him as an example because most people probably agree that he's LIE. I, for one, say LIE. Niffweed17 21:53, 28 September 2007 (BST)


  • I am also inclined to agree with LIE. He has a tendency on the forum to correct the factual errors of others even if it is "annoying" (   -leading/   -role); will "ramble" (in his words) for literally hours (yes) on subjects of his interest, including mostly factual data interspersed with his opinions in a way which is mostly unstructured or only very loosely structured, seems unable to be concise ("I can't talk long" = 30 minutes) (   -leading/   -ignoring); a tendency to try to be witty/crack jokes/etc. but can't sustain it and in any case is usually too subtle and annoys people who think he's serious (   -role), vindictive and sometimes even cruel towards forum members he dislikes as people (Phaedrus/smilingeyes/etc.) (   +    but in a sort of "ugly" and self-righteous way which indicates they are not his strengths); and a bunch of other things. --Tanehem 03:15, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
I don't think I'm "unable" to be concise, the "I can't talk long" thing is more of a Ni + Fi DS thing -- that is, I am aware that time is running out in advance, but dislike cutting it suddenly, unless I really have to, of course. Expat 12:37, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
Ok, I misattributed the latter, and probably misrepresented you in the spirit of not taking up so much space of niffweed's userpage. Sorry. :\ --Tanehem 12:40, 2 January 2008 (GMT)


  • IMO Expat is clear LSE. His emphasis on     +     is certainly there, I find him quite coherent and easy to read. But he lacks comfort with     to the point that I can't imagine him being at ease around an SEE or ESI. I don't see much     going on here either. His manner of speech doesn't incorporate the usual     peculiarities as described here [4] in Rick's notes on the book "Semantics of Information Elements." He also suggests more     than is typical for an LIE. I remember some comments awhile back he made about liking to relax with good wine and cigars - not that this comment means much in isolation, but the impression of it struck me as peculiar for an LIE. I would say that he embodies more of a Delta outlook, which is self-evident in his very positive interactions between other Deltas on the 16types board. His lack of concision that Taneham points out is also not common for LIEs. Dynamicism 07:03, 2 January 2008 (GMT)Dynamicism
Which raises the questions: (1) Why should a LSE "lack comfort" with Se - their 8th function? It's like saying that an ESI "lacks comfort" with Si, or an ILI with Ti, or a SEE with Fe. (2) Why should a LSE "lack more concision" than a LIE? (3) Who are those "Deltas"? The Deltas I interact more regularly with there are Minde (EII) and Kim (IEE). I do get along with EIIs, but they are the LIE's semi-duals - so shouldn't it be positive? As for Kim, it seems to me that Dynamicism himself had positive interactions with her for quite some time - so from this argument, he's Delta too. The other IEE is Rick, but our interactions are mostly limited to socionics, even as I do like him. (4) How often have I even mentioned Si-related stuff since I got active in such discussions? The wine and cigar things don't mean much in isolation, indeed. How often have I even mentioned this kind of thing? Those who would argue LSE for me have to argue FOR LSE, rather than just against LIE, and using arguments that are indeed exclusive to LSE as opposed to LIE. Expat 12:29, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
(I have deleted what I said about EIIs and their "8th function" - it was sheer nonsense - I was too tired). We can apply that to IEEs such as Kim and Slacker Mom, and ask whether they have "lack of comfort" with Fe. Expat 00:23, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
Further on "Deltas", first, to type people through their interactions with others is problematic because then we have to make sure those others are correctly typed. But, leaving that aside, which types would have clearly different relationships with LSE and LIE? I can think of essentially three: ILI and SLI, and IEI/SEI their mirrors/supervisors/supervisees, and illusion/contrary, LSI/LII; followed by their quasi-identicals and of benefit/activity, that is, ILE, IEE, SLE and SEE. The others - dual/semi-dual (ESI/EII), comparative/identical (LSE/LIE) and super-ego/look-alike (ESE/EIE) are too similar to differentiate between LSE and LIE. It would have to be demonstrated, for instance, that my relationships with LIIs are better than with LSIs, and so on and so forth. To state blankly "Deltas" will not do, unless it could demonstrated that there are a lot of SLIs among those. Further, I wonder which ILIs would claim they supervise me, and in which fashion. Expat 13:11, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
I'd say Expat pretty much owned your ass there, Dynamicism. Ezra 16:01, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
Well, I don't know you hardly at all and I'm not sure what your intentions are, whether you are being a dick or fucking around in jest or what the deal is here. Lemme know so I can respond appropriately, thanks :D Dynamicism 15:45, 3 January 2008 (GMT)

Hi, my response is here Not sure what to do with it, it's way too long to be posted on here.Dynamicism 15:45, 3 January 2008 (GMT)

  • LIE became very much clear to me after meeting Expat in person. Before, I believed him to be LIE; having planned a meeting with him and seen him in person, I could not imagine any other type. -- Gilly 16:32, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • LIE. The real-life interaction dynamics completely match LIE-IEE who share some intellectual interests. Which is, he draws     out of me, and I like his    , in addition to general knowledge on different subjects. Why LIE over LSE? He is not the kind of person who creates recreational situations where people just do enjoyable things together like, say, jog, walk around and soak in nature or city life, watch movies together, etc. Yes, he has the pub thing down, but that is just a backdrop for discussion of ideas and knowledge. My interaction with LSEs tends to take a "how-to" route where we discuss specific things we are doing and plans we have and talk about ways to improve them. --Admin 19:03, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
Think it over, Rick -- there are suggestions that LIEs never do things like having a beer at a pub.Expat 19:09, 4 January 2008 (GMT)


  • LIE: for many reasons as above. However, I do not interact with him enough to say that I know very well what his type is. Based on what I hear, and what I see on the forum, LIE seems like a good call. UDP 09:53, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
  • LIE. --Joy 23:26, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Even though an ENTj couldn't possibly enjoy the occasional cigar or pub visit, I'm going with ENTj. --Discojoe 04:22, 8 January 2008 (GMT)
  • LSE Very apparent lately, especially in the way he handles confrontation. Zeia 19:54, 10 January 2008 (EST)
In what ways does he handle confrontation that demonstrate LSE. and don't simply copy/rephrase at what ashton wrote, in addition to it being bullshit, it doesn't demonstrate that you have a mind of your own and aren't simply following ashton blindly (which is honestly what i want to see; i won't lie. i admit up front that my reasons for pursuing this are not remotely related to expat's type.) Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:16, 11 January 2008 (GMT)
I'm pretty sick of the me blindly following Ashton hoopla that seems to come out everytime I post. I'll just copy and paste what I typed on the forum. "Expat is a pretty clear LSE to me as well, I wont bother explaining because Ashton tends to sum up my thoughts well enough. But, I will say that if you look at the way he responds to pressure and to confrontation, he brings out exactly what's familiar and instictive to him, finding reasons to say that he's better and more deserving of "the gift of correctness" than anyone else. It's very much like the annoying parental argument of, "I have more experience, so I must be right". Very very delta themed, and very apparent in his responses to Ashton. Also, the artful dodging is almost as apparent, when a question is asked that he dosnt know the answer to, the topic is switched or something strong and dominant comes out to try to derail the conversation. It's extremely sad to know that he dosnt even realize he does this lately..." Zeia 20:28 (EST) 10 January 2008
Zeia, I suspect it will be pointless (and more on that later) but here's my answer to the "question he doesn't know the answer to" or "confrontations"; which have the same answer: pointlessness. My views on socionics are all over the forum and in this wiki; I am ready to answer questions related to that, and if I don't know the answer, I will revise my understanding and try to find one. However, often I see no point in continuing discussions that are based more on conflicting assumptions than on evidence or logic. It is clear to me, according to my understanding of socionics, that the whole "core socionix gang" is Beta and that you are IEI. It is equally clear to you, it seems, that I am LSE. Obviously we're starting from very different understandings of socionics; mine are clealy explained in the wiki and in the forum. They are also consistent with the conclusions I reach from discussing it with Rick and others, personally or online, and are consistent with my own observations and understanding. When I refrain from continuing discussions, either with Ashton, yourself or whoever, it's usually not because "I don't know the answer" - there are plenty of examples where I've openly admitted "I don't know". The reason why I don't answer in the cases you seem to refer to is that I can see that the discussion is getting nowhere, and I go "whatever", or to use one of your own preferred expressions, "sigh". As for confrontations, I dislike getting into confrontations that are pointless, but above all with individuals I very much, and openly, dislike or even despise, such as Ashton. I see nothing to be gained from them, except my own annoyance, and lots to be lost, like time. As for "better and more deserving of the gift of correctness", yes: I have my own moral and ethical judgements, which to you and others may seem arbitrary. I think that Ashton is a rotten human being with a bad character, from what I know and even from his own self-descriptions. I don't know you much, you seem rather harmless and indeed more like a sort of Ashton sidekick, but indirectly that doesn't speak well for your character and moral judgement, either. That you disagree with that is beside the point. So, I often just don't want to get involved in discussing anything of any sort with either of you, because I see it as pointless and leaves a bad taste in my mouth, or it makes me sink to your level of "argumentation", which I later regret, for many reasons, probably the opposite of those I think you take for granted. You're perfectly welcome to see this as yet another evidence of all the points you've already made for my being "LSE". Since I don't think you have any understanding of what socionics is truly about, to me it's a non-issue. Expat 12:06, 11 January 2008 (GMT)
You can say it's the same shit that Ashton says, and it probably is because we come to nearly the same conclusions on a multitude of topics, however how much we actually deal with each other is actually quite small, and I can guarantee that we did it separately. I've been eyeing this list since it was created, and I've avoided posting for a while because I dismissed it outrightly as ignorant meanders about who the hell knows what, and I'm saddened to see it has not changed. Honestly I feel like sharing my opinions for whatever reason right now and I'm here to do so. I should say that I'll probably get bored with this in like a week and never come back, but until then. Zeia 20:28 (EST) 10 January 2008
So two people can come up with the same erroneous conclusions for the same reasons without talking to each other and without engaging in copycat typing at all. Good to know. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:46, 11 January 2008 (GMT)
Zeia, would you mind explaining where you got the notion that "I have more experience, so I must be right" is "Delta themed"? Never mind my type. I am asking where you got that notion from, generally speaking. If you can't do better than saying "it's obvious to anyone who isn't retarded", don't bother. Expat 09:53, 11 January 2008 (GMT)


Zeia 20:28 (EST) 10 January 2008

You can say it's the same shit that Ashton says, and it probably is because we come to nearly the same conclusions on a multitude of topics, however how much we actually deal with each other is actually quite small, and I can guarantee that we did it separately. I've been eyeing this list since it was created, and I've avoided posting for a while because I dismissed it outrightly as ignorant meanders about who the hell knows what, and I'm saddened to see it has not changed. Honestly I feel like sharing my opinions for whatever reason right now and I'm here to do so. I should say that I'll probably get bored with this in like a week and never come back, but until then. Zeia 20:28 (EST) 10 January 2008
So two people can come up with the same erroneous conclusions for the same reasons without talking to each other and without engaging in copycat typing at all. Good to know. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:46, 11 January 2008 (GMT)
Zeia, would you mind explaining where you got the notion that "I have more experience, so I must be right" is "Delta themed"? Never mind my type. I am asking where you got that notion from, generally speaking. If you can't do better than saying "it's obvious to anyone who isn't retarded", don't bother. Expat 09:53, 11 January 2008 (GMT)
(Notion is in reference to my claim of delta's using an excuse of "I have more experience, so I must be right") It's my belief that that notion comes mostly from Alpha and Delta, but can be more widely seen from delta. To be honest I came up with the idea mostly from my own interactions with alpha's and delta's. It's probably the most common negative trait that seems to come out within delta's whereas narcissism tends to stick with alphas. The whole academic community seems to sometimes have a problem with this (an institiution I think heavily inhabited by delta's and alpha's.) If you're looking for some concrete evidence from an established "socionicist" or a roughly translated russian article, I cant give it because I dont speak russian and I dont trust the english translations. I seem to remember a reference by one of the older socionics founders of calling the delta quadra as "older" or "aged". And its exactly with this that you can see unhealthy use of "Since you're not credible, you cant be right" or general belief in what's already been established as more right than anything or anyone new.
As related to your other reply to me, congratulations on being able to come up with a 'logic' friendly excuse for not responding. It all goes back to what's been said about you before, you expect people to answer you and give arguments against something, but when you dont know you front with "it's pointless to argue with you any longer, nothing comes out better for me." An attitude I see very prevalent in someone who has an Si dominant function. You've expressed that you just cut off discussion when you're uncomforatable with where the discussion is headed, this seems entirely ungamma in thought to me. From my understanding of gamma quadra rationale, gammas restlessly argue in what they believe in as right. It's not like a gamma quadra member, especially NT gamma members to just snap out of a discussion once it's no longer headed toward their own prerogative. As far as referring to my own *sigh* as a way of cutting of discussion and forgetting about it, you can ask joy or anyone else I've been in debates/arguments with before that I dont really just snap out of the discussion and give up until it's far over. The emote was more or less used when I was frustrated from not being able to show the other person where exactly my thoughts were coming from, and usually that alone. Zeia 18:05 EST, 16 January 2008
Expat is NOT "using an excuse of 'I have more experience, so I must be right.'" That's not even close to what he's doing. There's a big difference between "I have more experience, so I must be right" and "You people are idiots and are despicable as people, so I'm not listening to you anymore." Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:23, 17 January 2008 (GMT)

I do not "expect" people to answer me or give arguments -- I think people are free to leave discussions whenever they wish, and I challenge you to provide evidence that I ever made an issue of it (the way you're doing now). You are taking my comment on your use of "sigh" too literally. As for your understanding of "Gammas restlessly arguing in what they believe is right", you might provide some evidence of it in terms of socionics literature, descriptions, whatever, apart from your own observations of people you think are Gamma because then it's meaningless. Personally I see really no point in "arguing restlessly" over anything which is not going to bring any benefit, least of all with people whom I despise. That was no excuse: I really have very little regard for you as a person. I don't know what else to tell you in this regard. Expat 23:59, 16 January 2008 (GMT)

Alright well I'm glad that came out, I didnt really post anything I said here for you really, mostly just for the community. I was pretty sure you wouldn't really care what I said. However, I find it funny that you base the majority of what your understanding is on socionics literature and not your own observations, I thought I'd throw that in there. As far as having little regard for me as a person, I dont know if I've done anything in particular to make you feel so strongly against me, I've merely brought my own opinions about your type, but oh well it's the same shit as always with you. I'll see whatever literature I can dig up. Zeia 20:45 EST, 16 January 2008
If you ever took the trouble to read anything I write, you should notice that I use a lot of my own personal observations, however, I don't claim to have invented socionics. So, yes, I do check my observations, and my understanding, against socionics literature and discussions with other people, so we know that we are discussiing the same things within the same premises. If you just use your own observations to confirm what you already know, the result is circular thinking. Which may well provide a version of socionics that makes sense to you, personally, but I have no reason whatsoever to take at face value, if my own observations and understanding of socionics tells otherwise. So you have called people who "argue restlessly over their ideas" Gammas. Based on what in the first place? I call most of those people Betas - based on my understanding of what the people who thought of the term "Beta quadra" said. Otherwise I see little point in even calling we are talking about "socionics" in the first place. Expat 07:08, 17 January 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Ezra

  • Current consensus: Image:Extroverted_sensing.gif Image:Introverted_logic.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): SLE | Ezra 14:11, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
2 7 1 1

[edit] Discussion Area

  • Plain obvious to me. I would love to hear some serious debate though if there are any naysayers whatsoever. Not least because I'd love to verbally floor them. Ezra 14:14, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
I think you're EII -- seriously. --Tanehem the Necromancer 14:16, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
(That was a vote for SLE). --Tanehem the Necromancer 14:16, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
You've lost me Ezra 14:17, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
Otherwise known as humour. --Tanehem the Necromancer 14:18, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
Sorry, I lost my sense of it when the Necromancer cast a spell on me. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! --Ezra 14:26, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
Fuck you. =P (It's not even relevant because you're not a thread, project, article or userpage, and also have generally not died yet -- as your own userpage suggests). --Tanehem the Necromancer 14:29, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I think he's a LSI. He's obviously a J type in my eyes. Extremely confident in his own logic (to the point of annoyance sometimes, but he's still cute when gets the "Ne PoLR moments")FDG 21:08, 3 January 2008 (GMT)FDG
  • Very clearly ESTp, imo. --Discojoe 23:48, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
  • SLE - if you want to see what emotion provoking Se+Ti responses are, look at how Ezra consistently posts. He is very much looking for and valuing Fe. UDP 03:32, 6 January 2008 (GMT) PS: good example of beta ST. Maybe could be LSI, but leaning towards having an IEI>EIE for dual.
UDP, if you see Fe dual seeking and valuing, why not LSI? Why IEI over EIE for a dual?
I did not say Fe dual seeking, I said "looking for", and what I meant was that he enjoys making big statements designed to generate emotional responses - like that quote I had in my signature for a while, about having no F'ing clue why I swapped to LSE, etc. He gets fully behind his statements, like be being LSI, and then changes them a few days later, like now, where I am LII in his eyes. I see IEI for a dual because he seems louder and more comfortable being openly ostentatious than LSIs I know. Also I agree with what Expat said below, about seeing irrational Ti. I believe people are mistaking having strong judgments and making strong statements as "LSI!", this includes myself as well. UDP 21:21, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • My vote is for SLE. He values     a lot, it's his natural inclination as to how to approach socionics (with the endless correlations with the ennegram, etc) but it's an impulsive, irrational     that would annoy an EIE imo. He's very     aware and I also got this impression when meeting him; however, I got the impression that his home environment encouraged him to "contain" himself a bit. Also - although this may be simply the folly of youth - he has a hard time "getting"    . Expat 18:29, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • LSI - If nothing else, the endless "what's my type" loop is indicative of the LSI hidden agenda: "to know". The preceding unsigned comment was added by zenbrat
- who said that? I disagree, I don't think it is indicative of anything. It sounds like something niffweed said about me, which I also disagree with. UDP 21:13, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
I object to your comparing my analysis of your hidden agenda to a ganin definition. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:21, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
is "to know" even the LSI HA? i thought it was the HA for ENFp/ESFp. my vote on ezra is a very tentative LSI. implied 19:37, 12 January 2008 (GMT)
actually you're right. i think Ni HA is supposed to be "to believe" or some similar bullshit. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:10, 12 January 2008 (GMT)

EP is all i'll commit to. i'm not convinced of SLE. Blaze 21:05, 7 January 2008 (GMT)

  • Why not? Or rather what else do you see? --Ezra 14:20, 8 January 2008 (GMT)
SLE looks fairly good, both for self descriptions and for numerous resemblances to people like gilly and FDG. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:58, 11 January 2008 (GMT)
  • My vote goes towards LSE. Which might come as a surprise to most of you and you'll probably accuse me of being crazy. The only other viable possibility in my mind is that he's Ti-ILE, but that's slim (5-10% chance I'd reckon). The reason I can't see anything in Beta or Gamma is because he doesn't seem to possess a natural, native Se awareness. The outward "Se" that people think he possesses seems to be just mimicry to me, it's not real. I watched his video and I have to conclude this his overall body language is non-indicative of ego/superid Se --- compare him to Herzy's video in that same video thread on 16t, and you'll see that the character of his movements is very different and his overall presence is just not at all the same. I think it's obvious from both his pictures and video that he is Extroverted, that's not disputable. If you watch his eye movements, facial movements, and body expressions, I think it's obvious that he's more Dynamic than Static, which would point away from an EP temperament. Also I think his eyes in pictures indicate Fi > Fe (yes this difference is noticeable in people, I don't want to bother explaining it unless you're genuinely curious... but if you're only interested in accusing me for being full of shit, then FOIA). Also of interest is that he's a 6w7cp, which has the effect of making his actual Socionics type less obvious than it would be otherwise. Dynamicism 12:36, 13 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I know this is a socionics discussion, but I'm not a cp6w7. Just to clear that up.
It's relevant to your Socionics type I think, since cp6w7s tend to be very reactive and like to act intimidating. And I think some people are taking it seriously and thinking you're SLE because of it. Also in the Enneagram literature, it's stated that cp6w7s are notorious for believing that they're 8s when they're really not. And anybody who's familiar with Enneagram knows this to be true to life lol. Dynamicism 14:43, 13 January 2008 (GMT)

1. I've always thought I was Dynamic by nature.

Which would have to make you Exxj or Ixxp. A Dynamic EP is impossible. Dynamicism 14:43, 13 January 2008 (GMT)

2. The 'look in my eyes' argument is bad.

I'm not making an argument. I'm just sharing an observation. Dynamicism 14:43, 13 January 2008 (GMT)

3. I think that's all you've said. Oh yeah. Ego Se. Well, Herzy did seem slightly more agitated than I get. If that's what Se-leading is, okay. I am not Se leading or ego. --Ezra 14:21, 13 January 2008 (GMT)

I said more - That you don't seem to possess native Se awareness and it comes off like you're trying to mimick Se... it doesn't strike me as something natural about you, but something more contrived. Herzy didn't seem agitated to me, but it's interesting that you thought she did. Dynamicism 14:43, 13 January 2008 (GMT)
  • In reply to your response to my second point, an observation isn't productive if it doesn't lead anywhere. What you just claimed doesn't lead anywhere, because it (dis)proves nothing.

Secondly, if I was an LSE, I would be perfectly adequate in Se. But you say I mimick it. Surely this is much more indicative of Se HA, or Se as a fifth function. --Ezra 16:01, 15 January 2008 (GMT)

I'm not convinced of SLE yet, so I say SEE for now. It's just that I can't see you (and FDG) as my dual, unlike Gilly for instance. Also, Expat mentioned above that your comparing of socionics and enneagram indicates Ti, but I don't see that. It's different from how Phaedrus compares socionics with MBTI. This is perhaps not the best example, but for what it's worth, Phaedrus dissects both models, connects the dichotomies and draws his conclusions. That's pure and clean, theoretical, impersonal Ti in my opinion. His approach to the enneagram is also similar. He dissects a description, connects some traits to socionics terminology and draws his black and white, sharp conclusions. Your approach is different in the sense that you're looking at various aspects in descriptions, looking for clues to establish a connection between two types and getting an idea for how strong that relation is. That seems more of an Fi/Te approach. Of course, the enneagram doesn't lend itself to the same kind of straightforward theoretical comparison to socionics as the MBTI, but precisely because of that, I think Ti types wouldn't be very interested in extensively studying the link. I'm inclined to think that statistical correlations are more an Fi/Te thing. --Mm 15:08, 11 February 2008 (GMT)

Or in other words: with Ti, as I understand it, one sees an enneagram type as a theoretical construct and tries to find connections between these constructs. With Fi one tries to get a picture of the type of person that is being described and then looks at how similar these two imagined persons are, how they relate to each other. (tentative) --Mm 16:29, 12 February 2008 (GMT)
this is interesting. i wish you had more to add because an argument for SEE is sort of amazing hah. considering that he can't seem to readily come to a conclusion on his type. i figure this would be easier for a SLE. i see the similarities with gilly and FDG, though. although ezra seems way more pompous somehow. again, maybe it's being young. implied 06:58, 15 February 2008 (GMT)
Well I don't want to push it too much, because it's more gut feeling than anything else; I don't have a strong case and the majority clearly thinks SLE. I'll see if I can add more things as I come across them.
One of the things that really baffled me was in "The pathetic hidden agenda thread" where he said: "Ti and Te HA annoy me most." Why would an SLE say that?
Why would an SEE say that? FTR, I don't know why I said that. You can probably ignore it. My understanding of people's weaknesses is merciless. --Ezra 19:15, 29 April 2008 (BST)
Another thing is that his Se seems more personally oriented (SeFi?). It's just that he seems more likely to say something like: "You're such a fucking idiot. Get lost." An SLE says more something along the lines of: "That's such a fucking stupid idea." To me (as IEI) the SLE isn't insulting, doesn't devalue the person, but is actually encouraging, like: "You did something stupid this time, but I know you can do better." An example of an SLE quote that I picked up somewhere (don't remember where) and that illustrates this perfectly is when somebody bumped into them, apologised and the SLE said: "Don't be sorry, next time just be more careful." With the fucking idiot example I miss that. It's just an over the top insult to me. It's uncalled for, exaggerated and it has a the-word-fucking-really-had-to-be-thrown-in-there-to-make-yourself-look-more-cool kind if fakeness to it. The reason I see it that way is probably because I don't see the longer term Te reasons behind it. I also can't really get used to the gamma(?) idea of you're not an idiot to everyone, versus the beta(?) idea of you're not an idiot all of the time. So for gamma calling someone a flatout idiot is perhaps less painful than to beta, because who cares about the opinion of just one person. For beta, if you're an idiot, you're an idiot and so you're useless to everyone which is a big problem. To me Ezra seems to use the gamma kind of Se. I guess, for the Te crowd I have to come up here with examples of posts that show that there actually is this kind of difference :/
Another minor thing I noticed is that he and liveandletlive both start threads about life around them, something they thought was funny or annoying and wanted to share and discuss, because it might be an interesting subject to just chat about. SLE types don't seem to do that. If they start a thread it's usually about some personal problem they want more input on. --Mm 16:18, 17 February 2008 (GMT)
that's interesting. so in your experiences SLEs would be more likely to start threads about personal problems as opposed to observations? i don't have examples of either, but i do find whatever T-ish functions he may be using to seem not entirely reliable or well-formed at all times. hah. like he's letting his bias get in the way. i think it's interesting that you see him as "trying to be cool" in an irritating way. i guess also he does generally come off as angry as shit as well. at this point i think i know what you mean, though. you might have to tow the line a little more to please the major Te crowd here, though. (; fwiw, i've been typed IEI and i see gilly as a less likely dual for me, FDG or ezra seem a little more like someone i could see as a possible dual. implied 09:39, 18 February 2008 (GMT)
  • SLE what can I say?     is written all over his posts. His arguments are direct and straight to the point, Ti > Fi Misutii 22:37, 13 February 2008 (GMT)

[edit] FDG

  • Current consensus: none
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable):
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
4 4 2

[edit] Discussion Area

  • I say SEE. I'm going to be lazy and quote from my user-talk page, as I think SEE and SLE are the only reasonable options are this demonstrates why I think one over the other: --Tanehem 03:38, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
Sure, but he seems to be too inconsistent even for SLE. He may seem to be fairly logical in isolated instances, but when you look at his ideas and posts with a long-term view he just doesn't make a lot of sense. He takes whatever thing has seized his attention at the moment (Smilexian socionics, Gulenko's forms of thinking, his apparent intertype relation with his new girlfriend, people he thinks he is like, etc.) and rams it against basically everything else he's ever said and categorically rejects everything else (Ti creatives are supposed to be a bit more flexible about this sort of thing, yes?). I would attribute this to something more along the lines of Ti vulnerable function. --Tanehem 14:12, 22 December 2007 (GMT)
From the description on this wiki (Ti as vulnerable function):
The individual has a tendency to either completely reject or completely embrace a source of theoretical knowledge, but does not like to reveal the source or his adherence to it.
The individual prefers to limit the number of theoretical categories he works with and tends to see new terminology, systems, and rules as being arbitrary and unnecessary until he at last discovers their necessity for himself through extensive personal experience.
The individual may be able to express his views clearly when given the time, but he is not prepared to deal with people who challenge his views and draw him into logical arguments and disputes.
It's not perfect but I see the bolded parts as applying to him. On dealing with challenges, he seems to respond to almost every challenge to his views with mostly     (which does not really point either way) and simply pointing to Smilingeyes/Gulenko/etc. or parroting them exactly without really getting into it (except to say that it is confirmed by his personal experience, which does not point away from SEE).


  • As indicated in the recent thread on his type, I would agree with SEE. Only recently I had him pegged as a rock-solid SLE, but further investigation into the way he deals with socionics-related information yields gamma tendencies, and Tanehem's point above about not being able to parse information very effectively does seem to fit fairly well with vulnerable    . Also the only person on the forum that appears to have a life. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:51, 2 January 2008 (GMT)


  • Not sure if I reject or accept completely systems of thought, honestly. It seems to me that I accept them all, pick up what I find useful, interesting, or compatible with my real life experiences, and avoid the rest (why would I bother considering it, from a :Te: perspective?). My long-standing controversy against Joy's lax usage of terminology would also point away from this: "The individual prefers to limit the number of theoretical categories he works with and tends to see new terminology, systems, and rules as being arbitrary and unnecessary until he at last discovers their necessity for himself through extensive personal experience.". Lastly, all my posts are written in less than a minute, and I never edit them. It doesn't seem like I need a lot of time to formulate thoughts; anybody in need of a proof of this can add me on msn and we can freely talk about socionics as much as he-she wishes, as long as I don't have any pressing matter to do.
PS. I think that my inconsistency can be used as an argument against     preference. My rejection on empirical grounds of every point made towards     PoLR and my obvious extraversion leave as logical possibility only two types: LSE and LIE. This is the thought process that carries me towards LIE and away from SEE, but of course everybody is free and welcomed to question it.

FDG 12:29, 2 January 2008 (GMT)


  • FDG seems more and more clearly SEE to me all the time. I find myself correcting his obviously sloppy logic on more than an occasional basis when I interact with him. He has a fondness for using tactics to divert from the subject at hand when his poor logic is brought to light. He gives little regard to the consistency of his opinions on his sources of information or the stances he takes on various issues over time, even when his frame of reference hasn't changed noticeably. His self-typings also seem to coincide almost perfectly with changes in his relationships. And, well, I don't think anyone has missed Fabio's numerous iterations of his workout habits, stories of physical exertion, deliberate vulgarity, and a laundry list of other traits that are textbook indicators of Extroverted Sensing dominance. Gilly (01:59, 4 January 2008 (GMT))


  • I think FDG is LIE. His restlessness coupled with his deliberate-natured disposition is a clear example of someone who is Exxj, not Exxp. He exercises more control over his internal states than would be typical for an Exxp as well. Also he demonstrates what I'd consider to be an obvious     vulnerable. His sense of his own physical limitations, if he acknowledges having any at all, is sparse at best. That he relentlessly pushes and exerts himself, is evident from what he tells about in many postings.
I don't see     vulnerable going on with him and I think Salawa misinterprets the causality of his observed behavior patterns. IMO, he seems to dabble with ideas and theoretical concepts whenever something about them strikes him as interesting or useful. Then he attempts to find some example of it in reality to see how well it holds true and/or see if there is a pragmatic utility to that idea/concept. I don't see him possessing a dogmatic adherence to these conceptual frameworks either, nor do I see him making spontaneous contradictory leaps of judgment as you describe. The process by which he comes to conclusions that he does is more progressive rather than disparate. What is rendered from this process is more cumulative and a synthesis of different ideas and insights, not a discontinuous leaping from one framework to another.
And when he brings various theories/concepts up for discussion, it seems to me that he does so simply because he finds them interesting and is curious what other people might have to say - not because he is trying to be imposing. That he is less inclined to debates about the internal logical consistency of the idea should come as no surprise. An LIE, especially an LIE 7, will have little patience for these kinds of long drawn out debates and may react with perceived curtness. For Fabio, I would imagine the important question foremost in his mind is, "Is there something to this idea, does it work, can I do something with it? If so, great let's go experiment and see what happens, I'll worry about the details later after it's proved it's epistemic worth to me." Anything else detracts from this central question and will be regarded with less relevance until that question is answered in their mind.
In answering that question, it should also come as no surprise that an empirically-minded individual would use his own personal experiences as a guide to testing the validity of a theoretical construct. This is a very     ego thing to do with something like this. The fact that there scarcely any reliable objective empirical evidence to speak of in Socionics that one can rely upon to help infer what is true or not in reality, makes this ever more imperative. So it's only rational in this case that one must test reality for themselves and make their own independent observations. No other means of validity-testing would be as satisfying to a person whose mind is orientated in this manner - reality must be the ultimate arbiter. Until then, it will of course be regarded as tentative. Also, I should point out that part of sharing these observations may be to see whether others have observed the same. If enough have, it begins to crystallize the notion into something that has more objective weight for them. This would be a typical     motive at work IMO. Dynamicism 14:25, 2 January 2008 (GMT)Dynamicism (BTW, how do I indent this to make each paragraph line up with the margin of my first line? It would look cleaner that way.)
I cleaned it up for you, but the way to do it is to use ":" at the beginning of the paragraph. You can use more than one to indent it further. --Tanehem 14:29, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
Hmm, yeah. I tried that but I still wasn't satisfied. I suppose it does look better still though. Thanks :) Dynamicism 14:56, 2 January 2008 (GMT)Dynamicism
If you're willing to give up the bullet point and indent it like the rest, it will line up, otherwise I think this is the best you'll get. --Tanehem 14:58, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I feel a bit of affinity with Fabio, and I'll put it down to Se leading. Okay, shit point, but hear me out. I think Te/Fi is evident. I also think we can all agree that Se/Ni is evident, and that he is clearly apt in Se, which pretty much rules out LIE. I think he might be getting too caught up on justifying his ignoring function by calling it his PoLR. However, the main difference between Fabio and I, or even Fabio and Gilly, seems to be that we can focus much better than he can. We can get our points across more effectively, I believe. (Fabio, no offence intended.) On top of Fabio's being adept in Se, I see IJ temperament as extremely unlikely, and since there is no alternative, EP he must be. So SEE makes most sense. --Ezra 14:22, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
  • You and Gilly seem to be very secure in your own logic. Sometimes, this smacks me of overcompensation. Given that I'm not discussing hard factual data, I always allow a lot of space for my conjectures to be wrong. In real life, generally being more open pays more than being excessively certain, unless you are truly certain of what you know. Focus in which sense? School? Work? Logic? I don't think I've ever made an issue of the fact that I lack focus (also because I don't particularly do, except when I'm tried), whereas other self-appointed LIEs such as Joy do it all the time and yet they types aren't questioned. This smacks of bias to me.

FDG 08:51, 4 January 2008 (GMT)FDG


to me FDG seems like an SLE. i don't see the ethics that i would see in say, liveandletlive or deltarho..... The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blaze

That's very vague. What specifically do you see from liveandletlive and deltarho that you don't see from FDG? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:30, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
  • "[...] other self-appointed LIEs such as Joy do it all the time and yet they types aren't questioned. This smacks of bias to me" Mate, I can assure you that Joy's type is in question here. Just look at the discussion. I tell you now, I hold no bias against you, and that I'm far more likely to be biased against Joy than you. I like you, but there's no reason I shouldn't doubt your type. This is what I get for being a Logical type; the bastardness of objectivity. I have always thought you were an SxE ever since I thought about your type. And there was that time when you said "I'm starting to think that Ezra is far more SLE than I am". Now, to do an Expat, from the evidence, there is nothing that contradicts SEE. That's why I'm going with that. Also, I'm good at picking up vibes. I'm confident that you give off the vibe of an SEE. And as I've told you before, I envy your way of life; most prominently your ability to keep healthy and fit, and really give concern to your health. There is not a chance in hell that when it comes down to Si you think 'don't worry about that'. You EVIDENTLY give a shit about it. -- Ezra 17:46, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
Ezra, I wasn't necessarily referencing to you, my observation was general. Anyhow, given that the biggest piece of evidence towards my Ti PoLR was my lack of logical consistency in matters of self-typing, and also given that other people that have showed the same behavior do not get "accused" of having a Ti PoLR, there is a lot that contradicts SEE as a typing. The fact that I care about my health does point towards a sensory type but it doesn't point towards ethical; the fact that I "lack logic" is something that has been invented in the last month out of nowhere and frankly I've been somewhat puzzled by its stable appearance among the bullet points for my type.
In the above sentence, I use the word "accused" because to somebody (me) that during his life has made of his logical capabilities a strenght, and generally been criticized for holes in typical "ethics"-related questions, being told that logic is your weakest point can only be considered as an accusation. Do you see where I am coming from? This is also the basic reason why I'm never going to accept SEE or IEE or any thinking-polr type for that matter. FDG 09:56, 6 January 2008 (GMT)FDG
"other people that have showed the same behavior do not get "accused" of having a Ti PoLR". This is because they are normally ethical types, and so people can accept their weak logic more easily. As an LIE, you have to have good Ti, and people don't see good Ti; they see weak Ti a.k.a PoLR.

"The fact that I care about my health does point towards a sensory type but it doesn't point towards ethical". No, but that story did. -- Ezra 17:58, 7 January 2008 (GMT)

  • My vote is for SLE. Not a really really strong opinion. --Admin 10:15, 6 January 2008 (GMT)

to explain my previous comment, i don't see ethics in FDG. i see a lot of focus on Se activities and an irrational way of doing things not a rational way of doing things. his posts are more logical than ethical and he agrees a lot with Ti style posts. he uses Se when evaluating Te style posts. Blaze 20:59, 7 January 2008 (GMT)

  • i actually agree with you, blaze. and i suppose deltarho and liveandletlive are probably better examples of ethical types, although they're also female and there's a bit of a bias like FDG should be buying purses and giggling or something. if "good logic" and "poor logic" are indicators of whether one is logical or ethical (and i'm not really sure that it is,) then i have absolutely no clue what gilly is talking about when he goes on about FDG having "poor logic." i think he has GOOD logic, personally, and i don't know what he's done that shows that he doesn't. just seems strange to me no matter how i look at it. agree with some of niffweed's points, that he does seem to have more of a "life" than most of us here, but he's such an extrovert anyhow. it's sort of like when people on the board say that ifmd95 is an ethical type. it just doesn't make any sense at all. right now i'm going with LIE, gary kasparov subtype. piss poor reasoning, but you're quite honestly far too much like my dad. only other thing i could really see would be SLE or E(S)Fp.  :p implied 03:27, 8 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I vote for SLE because most of the arguments against Ti seem to be based possibly on an NT idea of how Ti should look, or on people's subjective opinion on whether his logic is "good" or not. --Jonathan 00:27, 9 January 2008 (GMT)
    ha! you're quite a smart man. implied 04:23, 9 January 2008 (GMT)
  • SLE. I've wondered about SEE in the past, but at this point I believe the Fe/Ti > Te/Fi preference is evident. And he obviously has strong Si and Se. --Joy 14:07, 6 February 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Gilly

  • Current consensus: none
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): None
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
4 3 4

[edit] Discussion Area

  • Did someone delete the Meged ILE (Ti) description I posted? I'm not seeing it anywhere? Here it is again:

Diana 22:52, 6 January 2008 (GMT)

Nevermind, it was Gilly who deleted it. I moved it back to the appropriate spot in the discussion where it was before he deleted it. Diana 23:26, 6 January 2008 (GMT)

  • SLE (will update). --Tanehem 16:26, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Just curious - is there anyone who still thinks ILE, and, if so, why? Ezra 14:16, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I changed it. One more vote for SLE. -- Ezra 19:05, 4 January 2008 (GMT) Apologies. I already voted. I will change it back to 3. That's 3. Salawa first, then me, and Gilly too. Therefore, there are 3 votes for Gilly's being an SLE (self-typing certainly constitutes a vote) -- Ezra 19:08, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Me and I will never stop believing he is ILE. I think he's just having some manic phase right so everyone is all OMG U R SO     GILLY, etc. He'll be ILE again in a couple weeks or less. Dynamicism 16:58, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
  • This alleged "everyone" doesn't really exist as I'm the one who proposed the change initially, based mostly on things I've written in the past and my real-life intertype relations (and if it eases your mind, I've actually been pretty depressed lately). I'm curious as to your actual reasons for my being ILE, my past self-typing aside. -- Gilly (02:18, 4 January 2008 (GMT))
  • No it doesn't ease my mind reallly... I don't have a reasoning off the top of my head I can throw out there right now - I wish I did. And I know 99% of people here frown on anything that isn't some meticulously logical, pedantic explanation. All I can say right now is: I just don't see the     in you. I don't know why, but it's difficult for me to see you having that kind of awareness. When someone has it, I know. I don't know how or why, it's just something you... viscerally sense about a person. You know they're tuned in to that. Anyway yeah, I'm sure this sounds like bizarro SubJeCtiVe BuLLsHiTTerY to most anyone reading this now and that I don't know what I'm talking about. :) Dynamicism 03:07, 4 January 2008 (GMT)Dynamicism
  • You said yourself, "I don't know how or why" -- so how can you be puzzled that anyone reading this will think you don't know what you are talking about? Shall everyone use arguments like "I just viscerally sense it" -- or is that just your prerogative? If so, why? Why should anyone give you any better explanation than "I just viscerally sense it"? Expat 05:42, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Did I act surprised? No. I perfectly anticipated how most would take it and I made it explicit how I knew people would react in response. I said I didn't have a "logical explanation" right now, but he wanted some input so I said what I could at the time - meaning to imply that at a later in time, I would have something more comprehensive. This wasn't to be taken as a comprehensive argument, just a purely subjective opinion based on purely subjective grounds - AS I FUCKING SAID IN THERE LOL. Ugh robots! And you know, even when I do offer detailed, comprehensive, and logically coordinated arguments rooted in Socionics doctrine - most of you STILL do not listen and simply wave your hands and continue to tout around whatever personal agendas you deem as true. Which on precisely that same note - why do we take anything seriously that you say Expat? It's not like you ever have anything of substance to back your arguments other than vague a priori premises about this or that, masked with a facade of expertise and yea-saying by a gaggle of groupies who have been suckered into the delusion. Dynamicism 20:42, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • "Yea-saying by a gaggle of groupies who have been suckered into the delusion"? That sounds like your bunch of tag-alongs. Expat 21:34, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Yeah? And which tag-alongs might those be? I wasn't aware I had a following, nor would I want one. Dynamicism 21:45, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Rofl -- Gilly 15:00, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Yeah it is "bizarro SubJeCtiVe BuLLsHiTTerY."-- Gilly (03:28, 4 January 2008 (GMT))
  • Gilly, stop changing the list total. There are two votes for SLE here including your self typing. Reading the discussion, I cannot tell who else voted SLE. therefore i can't count it. accept that people are stupid, don't follow the rules for indicating their votes explicitly, and that the list is unimportant and irrelevant as a consequence as compared to the discussion. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:35, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I see myself, Tanehem, and Ezra (although he didn't bold anything, he implies it pretty clearly and I know for a fact that such is his opinion). -- Gilly 16:35, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Why do you keep changing it back? Just because he didn't put bold letters? I think his intent is pretty clear; I had to change the tally from 2 to 3 when I added my vote. And why did you delete part of what I wrote? What's up your ass? If it's so unimportant and irrelevant, quit being such a    ght wad. -- Gilly 18:43, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
His intent in making that comment was not clear. and its my userspace, so i make the rules. now stop changing it. don't like it, go away. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:14, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Can I just say, Dynamicism, that if you are an LIE, I don't really see how the fuck you can have any Se-seeing abilities whatsoever. Leave it to the Sexperts. -- Ezra 19:10, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • So bring on the Sexperts then! Where are they?! I dunno of any    -dominants here except Herzy. I don't know about you, since you hardly speak to me directly. I call BS on your assertion that LIE has no    -seeing abilities, since how else would they ever recognize their ESI dual if they did not? Anyway, I've spoken to Gilly more than enough, likely far in excess that you have. He is not SLE, he's as ILE as they come and he always will be. If you want evidence, go look at how vividly he spoke of     in the past, what it's like, how he uses it. You can go find posts on it if you want, I'm not wasting my time digging up evidence that people are more than capable of doing themselves. Some of you seem to have the memory of goldfish or something and are completely incapable of putting people's long-term behaviors patterns into any context. It's like their appraisals of people change by the week depending on whatever recent isolated incidents there have been. This fickleness baffles me to no end. And Gilly, quit being a pussy and deleting my earlier comments towards you. Dynamicism 19:59, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Lol, like I have anything to hide from you. Want me to put them back? Because I will; they make you look like even more of a jackass. I deleted them because your bullshit is polluting an otherwise productive place; you're lucky I haven't gotten rid of the rest of your blabbering nonsense. Go ahead and ask Herzy what she thinks; you're in for a surprise. And, like I said, the retyping is BASED OFF OF EVENTS FROM THE PAST AND THINGS THAT HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TRUE; not sure how that escaped your s00per awesome Te-dar, lol. Now hurry back and let your Socionix minions suck on your insecure little prick ; the only thing that gives a shit about your opinion here is the tally. -- Gilly 21:34, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • SLE. Mendelh 19:16, 4 January 2008 (GMT -4)
  • He's ENTp. --Discojoe 01:00, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
  • A rather obvious ENTp-Ti FDG 10:17, 5 January 2008 (GMT)FDG
  • Heck, EIE. Nice guy, gets along with others when he wants, emotionally excitable, jumps to conclusions, once-upon-a-time was known as an attention whore, inconsistent and flexible in self-descriptions to the point of ... (not wanting to even get involved in his type discussions). That's not a very strong typing on my part, but probably no worse than some of the others here. --Admin 15:18, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
i think this isn't a bad typing. seriously. plus, he's batshit crazy. i'll back you on this and put in a vote for fun. EIE i also seriously do not get where anyone sees gilly as     dominant. i mostly agree with the users who list him as ENTp-Ti, though. arguments are about as productive as arguing with UDP (e.g. a brick wall!) implied 20:04, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • FWIW I'm more inclined to see EIE than ILE for myself. It certainly makes more sense of my intertype relations. -- Gilly 20:40, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
I'll third EIE. Most of what Gilly does on the forum is just to provoke other people. He seems to enjoy arguments not so much for the logic and impersonal exchange of ideas, but for their emotionally charged and confrontational aspects. Psychological problems notwithstanding, Gilly is a generally imbalanced and controversial person who I think ENFj fits quite well. Thehotelambush 04:50, 2 March 2008 (GMT)
  • I'm not sure where I've been inconsistent in my self-description. I'm not sure I've ever put it all in one place, which I guess could be a point against Te? but I'm not sure I've ever said anything contradictory about my personality or life. -- Gilly 15:34, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Maybe that's just my impression from your bouncing around quadras and saying each time that the Alpha Quadra description "fits you perfectly," then leading Ne "fits you perfectly," then saying the same thing about other types and quadras. Whatever — I don't know!:) --Admin 16:19, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I can see where you're coming from, although I would attribute it to     creative and     role. -- Gilly 16:29, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Alright, Ashton, calm down. You can see another Se-dominant. Me. If you don't believe me, or don't want to believe me, read my posts on the16types.info. Then make your judgement. mustachio has also been around for longer than me, and he is evidently an SLE. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ezra
I am calm lol. I don't know if you're SLE or not - though I don't know what else you'd be either. I saw your pictures on Facebook but you are hard to place VI wise for some reason. I have seen your posts but I haven't interacted with you enough to say for sure (though I'd like to at some point, so that I can confirm it for myself.) Dynamicism 23:02, 6 January 2008 (GMT)


  • I still say ILE. None of the reasons that you've come up with for SLE actually point both towards SLE and away from ILE in my opinion, and some just back up ILE further. Diana 04:18, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • You haven't even heard my reasons. -- Gilly (04:20, 4 January 2008 (GMT))
  • What are your reasons then? Diana 04:40, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • A good portion of them are on my user page here on the wiki. -- Gilly (04:42, 4 January 2008 (GMT))
  • And, which of my alleged former reasons back up ILE? -- Gilly 04:45, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • On your points Gilly from your userpage (I'll italicize my comments):

People seem to doubt my self typing. My reasons for switching from ILE to SLE are as follows:

Every relationship I've ever been in has been with a Victim (EIE, IEI, LIE) Says nothing really. The only real long-term relationship I've ever been in has been with an infantile. It doesn't make me a caregiver. Nearly all of my real-life friends are Betas I have pretty clear conflicting values with my all-Delta family I wrote a description of Infantile/Caregiver relations a while back in which the role of the Infantile is described perfectly by the Wiki Se dominance page: thinking that life is naturally "working against me," being full of obstacles that need to be overcome, and needing someone to reassure and motivate me when I lose faith in my direction (Ni+Fe Super-Id) Links? I despise being "taken care of;" my mother is LSE and I find her Si pretty intrusive. Even the thought of needing that kind of assistance in little day-to-day matters disgusts me, and I find it completely repulsive in other people. Yet you expect a kind of carefulness and sensitivity from others - getting quite offended by my lack of sensitivity towards you being bipolar. I have a lot of social paranoia that is explained perfectly by the description of Ne as a 3rd function here on the wiki. There are other possible reasons for that as well, including ones you've mentioned, such as being bipolar, not having a good family relationship growing up, and the drugs that you've taken. Real life aside, I think my behavior on the forum is much more indicative of Beta values than Alpha. I try to keep people accountable for the things they write, especially when I think they underestimate the effect their words have on the opinions of others. I think this has to do with Aristocracy and Se + Ti . I think it has far more to do with Ne + Ti. Delta ENFps also have on many occassions reminded people to be more careful of the effect they have on others, but are not as anal about the wording. I've never had any problem engaging people in debate and I never shy away from any kind of confrontation, even when it degenerates to unproductive, petty bickering. VERY strongly suggests ILE, not SLE. "Devil's advocate" kind of arguing and sparring debates for the mere purpose of debating is highly suggestive of Ne rather than of Se Diana 20:08, 4 January 2008 (GMT)

  • You've only been in ONE long term relationship? Sorry, but my sample size is just a tiny bit bigger. You call depression-related sensitivity Infantile-related? Go find any super-Se-sub SLE bipolar and see how tough he is when he's being jerked between manic and depressed states in one day. I actually have great relationships with my family, we're pretty healthy as a whole, other than the chaos I tend to cause; that doesn't mean we can't have conflicting values, which we quite clearly do. My social paranoia is there no matter what state I'm in, so there goes it being related to bipolarity, not to mention it's EXACTLY as mentioned in the wiki description. I'd like to see your reasoning for accountability being related to Ne; you site Delta NFs, but they, too, are Aristocrats, and have Se+Ti blocked together, as I've said, so there goes that. And I'm not sure that playing devil's advocate, which I actually didn't even mention, has anything to do with type, although, yeah, there are some descriptions of ILEs that mention it; still, not at all what I'm talking about, and not at all anything worth basing a typing on. -- Gilly 21:32, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Yes, I've only been in one serious long-term relationship. It spanned 11 years. Eleven years is quite a bit longer than your sample size, but that's completely besides the point. The point is that it's nothing to go by.

Now, it's "depression-related sensitivity". Ugh. It's pretty obvious that you want to be SLE for whatever reason. You'll come up with excuses and blow off anything that in your view doesn't fit this pre-determined choice. But the silly thing is - none of it fits, besides Fi polr, Fe quadra, Ep temperament, you know, the same things that fit ENTp! And yes playing Devil's Advocate could certainly have much to do with type. I realize you didn't mention it presently, but it's something that you've prided yourself on in the past. When you argue with someone it seems it's rarely to a point, but rather to see how much you can twist things to your favor, which is why it drags on and on into senseless bickering rather than reaching a conclusion. IMO, nothing I say here will make any difference, just like nothing I said on the forum made any difference because you're not truly looking for input. You merely want to bat away suggestions to feel more confident in this crazy typing. Yep, I'm assuming motives, but it's the only thing that explains your behavior, and how you keep throwing fits about anyone disagreeing with your new typing. Additionally the way you keep changing the total on here . . . yeah, you're not trying to get a consensus on SLE, oh no, you're completely objective and not trying to be any particular type. Right.

Arguing is not Se Gilly. Starting debates and continuing them endlessly is not Se. ENTps are definitely debaters. And they will pretty eagerly jump in the mix to test their wits on anyone they feel will give them a good argument. Mental sparring and the back and forth, never tiring of something that goes nowhere. . . very ENTp.
You've done nothing that demonstrates that you would be Se leading. You seem very much cerebrally-focused, whereas SLEs can be very smart but they are a bit more action-oriented. They actually do things besides lie around playing video games, doing drugs and debating with their friends. I know it'll probably be jumped on as not much to go off, but you just seem awkward, non-centered, not much connected to the world around you. And yeah, depression can have that effect - but your description of "beta group behavior" said nothing different, so apparently you think it's rather typical beta behavior? Diana 00:11, 5 January 2008 (GMT)


  • Ok, so you've only been in one relationship; however that worked out is your business, but it seems like it didn't go very well. I, however, don't think it's a coincidence that I've dated 4 girls in 3 separate locations and they've all been Victims, and that all of them ended because of external circumstances and had nothing to do with us being incompatible. I think that's worthy of mention, and I think most here would agree.
  • Then most people are putting too much weight on the whole victim thing if that is the case. And I said I've only been in one serious long-term relationship, not that I've never dated anyone else. Diana 03:47, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
I never claimed that arguing is Se. I DID claim that never backing down from an argument, no matter how petty, could be an indicator of Se>Ne, at least in values. And yes, I do pride myself on being able to imrpovise and argue a viewpoint that isn't mine. There are PLENTY of SLE lawyers out there, Diana, in case you couldn't come to that conclusion on your own. But sure, take it as your only point for Ne, if you like. And, quit being such a coward; I changed the total because Ezra voted without bolding his letters, and niffweed was being pedantic. -- Gilly
  • Excuse me? A coward? In what way? By pointing out that you were trying to mess with the results to point to a specific type you wanted to be? I think you need to work on your understanding of the English language a bit more, as it's a rather odd thing to say that would have anything to do with cowardice! Perhaps you meant that you were cowardly trying to hide behind the results? That would certainly fit better. Yes there are SLE lawyers Gilly, but should you ever become a lawyer, you won't be one of them. You'll be an ILE lawyer, since you are in fact ILE, not SLE. Diana
  • I'm glad you give me so much credit when you have no clue how I live my life, lol. Yes Diana, I'm SOOOO awkward. SO awkward, in fact, that I've had four times as many relationships as you. SO awkward, in fact, that all my friends can't wait until I live in the fraternity house because they know I'll throw good parties. SOOOO awkward that I have social connections with every fraternity on campus and have been asked to be the social chair of mine when I become a full member.
  • I never said you were socially awkward. I do think that you seem very physically awkward. Diana
  • Lol. Sure, I spend most of my free time at my dorm, but I also get out and go on hikes and go rock climbing with my lazy pothead debating video game playing friends. Before my biggest spell of depression hit me a couple of years ago and I started smoking every day, I was working out 4 days a week after school. And after I stopped working out, I took up two sports. I played two sports in high school; did you know that? How many did you play? How lazy am I now? I'm VERY much directed, if you want to know: I'm a philosophy major (don't try to twist that, either; Ezra's one as well) and am going to go to law school, and a few of my EIE friends and I already have connections from graduates of our school in DC and want to start our own firm. How's that for "goal oriented?" What have YOU done this month, Diana? -- Gilly
  • You're being silly. I ran track and cross-country in high school, and played volleyball and basketball on a church team, since you're interested. I also was in band and jazz band, and the national honor society and joined a fencing club one year. I never did say you were lazy, but I did use your own self-description as an indication of your type, and my opinion hasn't changed on that.
As for what I've done this month, though it hardly matters: I finished up my classes for the semester, took care of kids/household/kids' activities, etc., flew whenever the weather allowed (have had to continually put off taking my checkride due to the wind), was elected an alternate to the republican county conventions that were held today that I attended, and nominated myself to attend the state convention but was not elected. Also, I have cold called multiple people and I hate the phone. (removing because it lends weight to Gilly's attempt to drive the topic off-track)Diana [Lol, my attempt to drive off track? It;s called a rhetorical question; I wasn't expecting you to get hyper-defensive on me, lol. -- Gilly] Being goal-directed and accomplishing things are NOT related to Se. There is no reason in the world that an ENxp wouldn't have goals and pursue them. No reason.
So all of that is just a waste of time to go into. Your attitudes and approaches are much more important than external behavior when typing. Behavior changes due to outside influences and circumstances continually. It's always changing, but how you process things, express yourself verbally, the approach you take, etc. give very strong clues as to what type you are. And they're not pointing to SLE. They're pointing to ILE. No matter how verbose an SLE is they don't do all this red-herring crap, and twisting things, and trying to manuever the points. Not that I've ever seen. One of the best things about SLEs is their straightforwardness. I'm not sure you could follow a straight line of reasoning without wandering all over the place and taking backroads if someone paid you a million bucks to do so. Diana (This really cracks me up, coming from you, Diana. You haven't made one valid inference that wasn't loaded with fabrications and misinterpretations in a single argument I've had with you. Get real. -- Gilly 15:28, 6 January 2008 (GMT))
  • End of story. Have fun playing your little games and see how many people you can fool. I personally am not buying it. Diana 03:47, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Well, I've been in four serious relationships, ie more than two months, and they've all been Victims. Hell, even the girl I'm getting with now is one. I don't know what your dating patterns have been, but mine seem to indicate that I have a preference for Ni. And how did you draw the conclusion that I'm physically awkward? LOL! I've never even posted a video with me moving around in it, and my pictures have been of nothing more than my face. I happen to be quite confident that you're pulling this out of your ass, partly because I'm the best dancer I know, guy or girl, who hasn't taken lessons. Quit making shit up, Diana. It's not getting you anywhere. I happen to know what's true about myself; the more crap you pull out of your ass, the less credible you get, so get your shit straight and make a real point or just give it up already.
Glad you're getting your shit together. Now, you claimed that I just sit around being a stoner like it's proof against Se dominance: "They actually do things besides lie around playing video games, doing drugs and debating with their friends;" not that it is, but even if it WERE, I have completely disproved your point: I DON'T just sit around, I get out and do physical activities, and I'm clearly doing more to accomplish my goals, ie going to COLLEGE, and a damn decent one at that, than YOU did at my age, Miss Night School. What OTHER PARTS of my self-description were you using to type me, eh? -- Gilly
  • Why do you keep trying to make this about me? I went to college. I graduated in 1999 with a BS in Fisheries and Wildlife Biology from the University of North Dakota, and I had a full scholarship to attend. I'm going to a local community college now yes, because I can get an AAS in Aviation along with my commercial pilot's license. By doing it this way it makes me slightly more hireable than going without any kind of aviation degree whatsoever. My first kid was born in 1998, the 2nd in 1999, and I still managed to finish my college degree. So knock it off. You're not doing anything a million other people of all 16 types haven't done, including me. (Again removing because it was bringing the subject off course. By following Gilly's misleading track we're getting further from anything of substance, and going in pointless circles.) Diana 08:26, 6 January 2008 (GMT)


  • Lol, state school. I'm not trying to make this about you. I'm just showing you that your alleged reasons for believing that I'm ILE are all complete crap, and, as even YOU are saying now, have nothing to do with Socionics to begin with. Now let's see some reasoning with substance this time. I've provided plenty of good reasons to back up my case, and I've refuted all of yours against it. Burden of proof. Go. -- Gilly 12:52, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Oh, and please, feel free to take your time addressing all of the shit you have completely fabricated (and proceeded to ignore outright once I called you out) in an attempt to back up your baseless typing. -- Gilly 13:52, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
  • False. You didn't even ADDRESS what I was talking about. You made assumptions and brought up a whole bunch of other stuff. You're neither SLE nor very perceptive. Diana 15:39, 6 January 2008 (GMT) Lol, I thought you were done arguing, Diana. Decided to erase that and keep going? Let's see it. -- Gilly 22:12, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
  • ROFL. Ok, Diana, which points did I fail to address? Where have I left any room for doubt in your load of bullcrap? I can and will refute anything you say, because I've got the facts on my side, and you have absolutely no ground to stand on. So go ahead. SHOW ME. -- Gilly 16:18, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
Let's talk about my processes and the attitudes and approaches I take, Diana. I'm not twisting anything; I'm telling you FACTS about my LIFE. Let's hear a good explanation from YOU. Come on, just once.
And, lol, hiding behind statistics. I bolded FDG's ILE vote for him and put it on the tally, and I was accurately representing Ezra's vote when I changed the tally. Go on, look for yourself. I'm trying to represent an honest count, whether people follow niff's retarded little rules or not, so shut your conniving little mouth already.
Yet again... -- Gilly 06:46, 6 January 2008 (GMT)

So there goes, ummm, everything you've said. Let's either see a set of worthwhile points, or stop wasting my time and space. -- Gilly 14:43, 5 January 2008 (GMT)

Please denote your comments more clearly by signing your name and indenting your comments (with the : operator). The above discussion is hard to follow. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:54, 6 January 2008 (GMT)


  • Here it is, Diana. Knock yourself out.


Logical subtype tries to produce the impression of serious person. It can be sharp, at times even unceremonious. It is confident in itself, he says rapidly, usually in categorical tone. It is superfluously categorical in its judgments, it has a tendency to tie by others its opinion. It sometimes seems energetic and self-confident. It is impatient and always it cannot listen collocutor to the end. He frequently is fascinated by something new, attempts to find to it practical embodiment. It actively and energetically defends its interests. In this case it can flare up and offend man, but, after noting this, he tries to correct position. It is very proud and it can be insulted because of the trifle, talk roughnesses, and it will be again affable and benevolent after a certain time. It is not predicted and contrasting in its behavior. View - first scattered, then testing, tenacious. The gait and the gestures sweeping, confident, but are badly coordinated. Poses free, flattened. It easily draws together distance, it can embrace, kiss collocutor.


Now tell me how this applies to what has been presented in this thread.

After you do that, go ahead and give me your REAL reasons for thinking I'm ILE and not SLE are so I can refute them and make you look like a retard. No more side tracks, no more making shit up, no more diversionary tactics. Give me your reasons, straight and simple, so we can get this over with once and for all. -- Gilly 02:01, 7 January 2008 (GMT)


  • -EDIT-

I don't think we need to be pasting chunks of type descriptions in here; you've wasted enough space already, Diana. Feel free to link. -- Gilly 22:12, 6 January 2008 (GMT)

  • Ha! So you're the one who deleted it. You're an ass, and it's not your page to decide what can be posted on here. If Niffweed would like it removed, since this is his page, that's up to him. Diana 23:22, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I can remove it if I like. You can keep putting it back if you like. It's a wiki. I think it's a waste of space and all you did was paste it in here without talking about its relevance or why you think it describes me. -- Gilly 00:26, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Wikis are not paper. I don't actually care at all, but I don't think there's any good reason to get rid of it, even if it doesn't apply. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:37, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • My goodness man, it's obvious how it applies. You went on describing yourself and the Meged ILE Ti description was saying the same things you were! Deleting it demonstrates that you'd rather just continue bullshitting. Diana 00:38, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • It's not obvious to me. What does it describe that I said? I seem to be too dumb for your obscure interpretations. By all means, enlighten me; it would do you a world of good to actually explain yourself well for once. -- Gilly 01:22, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Sigh. You're the only one who seems to have such extreme difficulty understanding me. It's really wearing on my patience.

Gilly wrote: I've never had any problem engaging people in debate and I never shy away from any kind of confrontation, even when it degenerates to unproductive, petty bickering. I DID claim that never backing down from an argument, no matter how petty, could be an indicator of Se>Ne, at least in values.

Meged wrote: It can be sharp, at times even unceremonious. It is confident in itself, he says rapidly, usually in categorical tone. It is superfluously categorical in its judgments, it has a tendency to tie by others its opinion. It actively and energetically defends its interests.

I think people have an odd view of Se. Too many think that if you act like a spoiled brat or say "Fuck off!" every other post that you're Se. Or if you love arguing and debate (even if it's in a very Ne manner) you're somehow Se. What's so great about Se anyway? Why do you want so badly to be SLE? Do you think you're a pansy or something if you don't "show Se"? It's dumb. Yeah, NTs are the only ones with brains, and Se folks the only ones with balls. Everyone else is stupid or weak. I don't care how cocky you act, how many fits you throw, you're missing the whole point of the element if you think that's what it's all about. Recognize that Se is first "extraverted sensing", and Herzy gave a good description of it. If ever there was an argument for Se-leading in Ashton, his discussion in Herzy's thread and identification with her description would be it, along with his belief that her description would fit almost anybody. I'm extremely doubtful that the description would fit you. Also recognize that if you are Se leading then Si is unimportant to you though you have no real issues with it. It is very obviously not unimportant to you. You know when Blaze was describing an ESTp not worrying about physical discomfort when pushing for a goal, it is the disinterest in Si that allows that. Things that you've described in the past as part of your life demonstrate weak Si, but not how it is for ESxps in my opinion. In my opinion. So don't ask me to write a thesis paper for you detailing why. Think about it yourself and decide how well it fits. Actually look at real ESxps Gilly. Do you see how you're different? Do you see the different focus? You asked me to explain as though you were ignorant but this is too much. . . you're not ignorant, I think you're just entertaining yourself and you somehow got a bunch of people to go along with it. I have no idea how. Diana 04:39, 7 January 2008 (GMT)

  • You've got to be kidding me. That's it? That's not any kind of correlation that gives ANY evidence AT ALL of my being ILE. Hell, it's not even the same thing! That's such a petty detail, I'm surprised you even wasted your time posting it, even if it WAS relevant to what I said. Not sure why you think I'm the only one who doesn't see where you're coming from; I've asked other forum members to read this and I have yet to hear someone who thinks you have a point at all (please don't . And I don't know why you think my "being a brat" is me "trying" to be Se; go look back in the forum for yourself, you'll see I've acted the same way (or, well, same two ways, lol bipolarity) since I got here, and it's got nothing to do with me wanting to "prove" anything. Si is not totally UNimportant to me, but it's not a priority, either; I like having time to relax and take the weight off with a good smoke, but it's not like I claim that my ideal state is sitting around all day with my hand in my pants. Just face it, already: you can't come up with any good arguments as to why I can't be SLE. Nothing you've posted here has any relevance to proving that I'm ILE; your strongest point is that I like to play Devil's Advocate, lol. Just admit it: all you're going on is that it just doesn't seem right to you. You should've said that from the beginning and not wasted your time arguing with someone who is clearly going to beat you. -- Gilly 14:46, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Beat me? That's what this is all about isn't it? Like I said before, you're really not interested in anyone's input or opinions, you just want to be SLE no matter how poorly it fits. I know that you've always acted like some goof throwing fits. It has never struck me as being Se. You're set on being SLE, but you aren't and won't be, all you can do is have fun pretending. . . and distorting the types for the gullible. Diana 15:22, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Yeah, I wanted to beat you. And now I have. What else did you think this was about? You think I respect your typing skills enough to actually waste time debating with YOU about MY type? LOL! You don't have any valid points that I would bother addressing even if I gave two squirts of liquid dog shit about your opinion. You were an asshole to me, and now I've beaten you, and I feel better about myself. Feel free to take pot shots at me for having low self-esteem; I frankly couldn't care less, I've been taking them my whole life. I know that I'm right and I feel even better about it now. News flash, Diana: YOU'RE the only one who's been suckered. -- Gilly 16:24, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • What the hell? I didn't do anything to you. You're a weird one. . . and still not SLE. Diana 20:17, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • That's right, tail between the legs. Get on your way. -- Gilly 20:34, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I think you've pretty well proven that you're disingenuous and have no interest in real discussion, and instead bounce around taunting like a bratty kid. I won't give you any more of my time. How sad. . . now you'll have to try to find someone else you can send PMs to acting like you're sincere and wanting a real discussion. Anyone who trusts you is a fool. And yes I was suckered. You got me. Diana 21:46, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • You're right, I have no interest in real discussion...with you. And now you've outlived your purpose to me entirely. I tried to reconcile with you sincerely, to no reply or reciprocating effort, even after you had blatantly insulted me regarding my mental illness, of all things. You dropped my kind gesture on its head like it was one of your little hellspawn, so this is what you get. Have a nice life. -- Gilly 22:06, 7 January 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Hellothere

  • Current consensus: Image:Introverted_intuition.gif Image:Extroverted_ethics.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): I feel like an absurd mix of EII and IEI -- Hellothere 07:50, 3 January 2008 (GMT)

After thinking about Fe vs. Fi long and hard, I don't think I am an Fi-ego type. My feelings towards others change too easily, too fluidly, depending on the feeling they have shown to me and I have observed them show to others in the most recent situations. Therefore IEI fits best. Some of the intertype relations seem a bit off, but that may be because I don't understand the true nature of the relations plus I have probably mistyped the few people I have tried to type in real life. -- Hellothere 20:50, 12 January 2008 (AEDT)

probably Delta - -- Hellothere 21:37, 3 February 2008 (AEDT)

I've decided: EII. Hellothere 00:10, 17 February 2008 (GMT)

ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
1 1

[edit] Discussion Area

  • Impossible. Okay, you're good at Ne, Ni, Fe and Fi, but you either value Ne/Fi or Fi/Ne. So, which one's it gonna be? --Ezra 14:26, 8 January 2008 (GMT)
Yes I know it's 'impossible'. --Hellothere 10:35, 9 January 2008 (GMT+10)
  • Put it this way. Could you have a relationship with Herzy? Or if you're gay, could you have a relationship with me or mustachio? --Ezra 14:29, 8 January 2008 (GMT)
I don't know any of you well enough to be sure. Herzy's forums posts are funny, but her 'Herzy post a video for VI purposes' did put me off slightly. --Hellothere 10:36, 9 January 2008 (GMT+10)
  • think a quiet IEI makes more sense, personally. even the fact that you found delta "boring" seems kind of indicative. implied 19:45, 8 January 2008 (GMT)
I found the description of EII-LSE duality to be boring, but I still do identify with the Delta 'message'. I want to help make the world a better place. --Hellothere 10:38, 9 January 2008 (GMT+10)
  • "her 'Herzy post a video for VI purposes' did put me off slightly." In what respect? --Ezra 01:10, 10 January 2008 (GMT)
Well for one I've never heard anyone say "puh" in real life o_O. Seriously though, I'm not sure what it was, her manner was a bit intimidating I guess, but that's not quite the word I'm looking for. --Hellothere 20:39, 10 January 2008 (AEDT)
  • If anything, I think she seemed slightly self-conscious. Not at all intimidating. Probably because we share the same functions. --Ezra 19:58, 29 January 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Herzy

  • Current consensus: Image:Extroverted_sensing.gif Image:Introverted_logic.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable):
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
6

[edit] Discussion Area

  • To my knowledge, nobody has ever seriously questioned the idea that Herzy is SLE. That's a rather remarkable achievement around here. Herzy's posts are the epitome of the beta quadra and    . The intertype relations for Herzy are very fitting; she is one of two users that I can think of to successfully deal with both the16types and socionix without running into problems, partly because she has such a simple and wonderfully sensible understanding of how to apply socionics that nobody can find a way to controvert it. She seems to get along reasonably well with everybody, but this is especially true of beta types she gets along particularly well with beta types. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:23, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
Joy has suggested EIE for her, not sure whether she still thinks so. I disagree with what you just said about "beta types getting reasonably well withg everybody"; that is hardly the case and there are examples both in socionix and the16types. In Herzy's case, it helps that she's a 16-year old girl who posts either for mostly "harmless" fun or for discussing socionics. But that is not important for her type, I agree with SLE. Expat 00:31, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
I didn't mean to imply that all beta types get along well with everybody; merely that Herzy seems to, for whatever reasons. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:34, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
I agree with SLE. There's absolutely no reason to debate it. Joy, explain why you think Herzy could be an EIE if you still do. Also, on Betas getting on well with everyone, I too don't have a problem with anyone on the forum, even Minde, who is my conflictor. --Ezra 14:28, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Yeah, SLE 4 lyfe. Dynamicism 21:16, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
  • SLE. -- Gilly 16:37, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I don't see anyone actually disagreeing with Herzy's being an SLE. She must be the first person everyone has agreed on unanimously -- Ezra 18:17, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Obvious SLE! Jimbean

[edit] Hitta

  • Current consensus: none
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable):
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
1 1

[edit] Discussion Area

IEI. The following is copied off of my userlist: Gives off an entirely Ni + Ti feel from his videos (his choice of topics for philosophical analysis seem particularly NiTi as well). He has demonstrated an Fe preference on numerous occasions by criticizing the general atmosphere as the forums as "stifling" his ideas and "resistant to change" instead of acknowledging the utter stupidity of his +/- model as the reason for its low acceptance. There are parts of his behavior that do not seem hugely NiFe, but with the extensive body of evidence that he has given us, I am absolutely confident in placing him as NiFe. I think that many of the criticisms of him not demonstrating     are a result of an internet persona, and that he would act somewhat differently IRL; obviously this is speculative, but it also outlines a critical flaw of internet typing which is basically being ignored by those that criticize that shows no apparent    . Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 17:56, 29 January 2008 (GMT)

  • LII, strong and valued     -whether you like his model or not the fact is he spent time making and finishing one, seems to enjoy developing theories. Strong and valued     and Strong but not valued    - He takes interest in lots of subjects it seems. But philosophy and the like seem to be casual hobbies for him, not his primary mode of thought- which is making theories.     is weak but valued. It's his dual-seeking function. He criticizes the atmosphere because he's expecting     but not getting it. Fe-ego types are able to change the atmosphere themselves. Misutii 22:55, 13 February 2008 (GMT)
how does he have "strong and valued     and strong but not valued    ? i also totally disagree that philosophy is not his primary hobby; from what i can see, the whole field of philosophy (socionics and other sort of esoteric branches of "people-mysticism" definitely qualify) is his life. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:01, 13 February 2008 (GMT)
Yes but     is an introverted function, it's difficult to notice in people. In regards to philosophy it's related to observing and reflection rather than purposeful action. Hitta seems to have gotten into socionics and then developed his theories quite quickly. I don't think that it's philosophy that intrigues him so much as the system behind it, hence his constant theorizing    .     is what's providing him direction for his theories, rather than be happy with good old socionics he can't help but see "new possibilities" and then he works these possibilities into his theories.     types on the other hand are withdrawn, what's happening within their minds is more important than external reality, they don't necessarily see a point to expressing their new ideas with people.     , I've found, also seems more related to these so-called "esoteric branches of people-mysticism", I know 3 ENFps, an INFj, and an INTj in RL and all of them seem genuinely interested in things like Astrology, Wicca etc. Whereas INTps and INFps I find might dabble in these but rarely take them seriously. Mysticism in     types is rooted more so in the "wisdom of the ancients", spirituality (something personal that's not preached), rather than new-age stuff.     makes us look for the best option, in regards to a people system for me it's socionics. Because I've found socionics I see little point in exploring other people systems like astrology/mbti etc, they're a waste of time. Misutii 00:03, 14 February 2008 (GMT)
i vehemently disagree with your interpretation of hitta's behavior, all of which -- from what i've seen -- is just plain wrong. are we talking about the same person? his theories have nothing to do with "possibilities" and everything to do with what makes structural     sense, in a very sort of convoluted way. i disagree with your correlations with Ne and mysticism; i think it has far more to do with Ni and it suggests to me that it might be possible that at least some of these people are mistyped. especially an     dominant. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:11, 14 February 2008 (GMT)
I strongly doubt I've mistyped these people as my INTp and ENTj friends were included in deciding the final verdict and we argue a lot before we agree. Do you know ENFps in real life? their interests are all over the place, ask them what their astrology sign is and they'll go on about scorpio interjects cancer in jupiter blah blah blah for days. Please don't tell me that all the ENFps you know are studious professionals that adhere strictly the scientific method in all that they do... cuz I'll cry. And INFjs? Please they're all about the rituals, whether it be a recognized religion or wicca, same shit. In regards to INTj and    , not long ago (like a couple days) machinetruc or tcaullig(sp?) made a thread about how you cannot change your type... you posted in it so you should know, notice his rant? It was all about change, about down with the conservatives, long live the liberals. I type both them as INTj regardless. Now if you remember Hitta's little rant, the one that you say shows    , look again and you'll notice Hitta is also ranting about change, about how others are unwilling to give change a chance. All this talk of change... is it possible that it's related to    ? I think so, if you don't then I need to know what     is to you Misutii 00:50, 14 February 2008 (GMT)
ok then; on Ne, mainly dominant Ne (which i think i understand better than creative Ne). it basically manifests itself as, as if in the most simplistic possible sense, an attitude of intellectual curiosity and restlessness and a need for new and interesting ideas to chew on. you talked about the varied interests of IEEs and sometimes EIIs; this is all very true, but there's a difference between the kinds of interests that an        type would have as compared to an     type. i have a very vague, very socionics-ish information metabolism way of differentiating the two in my mind; basically, the interests of an IEE will be "people interests" (and this term can be very misleading, so hear me out). astrology is a terrible example because it's such bullshit, and i think that IEEs are somewhat smarter and more realistic than you're giving them credit for. something like behavioral psychology, however, could perhaps be a very natural kind of field for an IEE on the basis of it being an excellent forum for them to explore themselves and because it's a people-oriented sort of thing. but also recognize that IEEs are Te-valuing types, and it strikes me that an IEE is going to be a lot happier with something if he can actually see something out of it rather than simply accepting it on the basis of structural logic -- which astrology is not, per se, but i'm certain that for every IEE who believes in astrology you could find at least three that pay no attention to it. with regards to EIIs, i probably understand their relation towards Ne a little bit less, but i truly don't understand the comparison to wicca and religion that you would associate to them. comparing this to Ni, i think that Ni is a lot more "mystical," in a way. whereas an IEE might try to find what's interesting, what helps people or what helps them understand people, an IEI or ILI is more likely to think about things like philosophy or meaning. as i said, i think that's precisely the person hitta is.
with regards to change, especially political change. again, i think it's all Ti and that it's all bullshit. tcaud has a very very rigid political system by which he uses to define such areas as socionics. it's very bizarre. hitta isn't quite as extreme (at least in the structure of his views), but i still think that the whole thing is not at all about actually finding anything related to an interesting idea, but rather in the Ti goal of improving existing structures. tcaud's system is very based on theoretical framework, which might be Ne related in terms of dominant Te blocked with Ne. hitta's, honestly, is less so. i don't know if that's because he's just stupid or what, and i wouldn't necessarily point to or away from Ne because of it; but i don't think his political views are (obviously) well informed, or particularly well developed beyond a desire to have his own     validated and appreciated, or in general other    -related goals. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:27, 14 February 2008 (GMT)
Thanks for taking the time to explain. I agree astrology was a shitty exaggerated example. Really I shouldn't have brought IEEs and EIIs into this at all as it just complicates things. But you've made a general connection between     as used by tcaud and hitta. I don't think discussing     is going to get us anywhere because we're both unsure of what exactly to make of it. So taking an LII (like Tcaud) an IEI (like me or someone else if you prefer- but not Phaedrus lol) and hitta, how would you compare them? Like, for example, you say hitta is needy of having his     validated. Is this similar to other LIIs on the forum? And what about other IEIs? Does my writing style or the logic of my arguments, being that I'm IEI, ressemble hitta's more than that of an LII? I'd like to know because I get the impression that you see hitta as a stupid IEI, but I see a stupid IEI as being a lot different than hitta is. The socioscope IEI description mentions some IEIs don't develop independence or something like that, so they go with the flow, believe everything they hear, never speak out, basically echo the group they're in. I see this as a stupid IEI. Misutii 02:26, 14 February 2008 (GMT)
that's a different kind of stupid IEI. before we go further here, i would prefer not to use you as an example of IEIs because the truth is that you're not somebody whose type i've thought about very extensively or am very certain about at all. that being said, i think it's obvious that hitta is not the kind of person who brings to the forum a very typically effusive     kind of perspective; actually, many IEIs don't really do that. there are a number of superficial similarities between hitta and some of the other Ti-morons on the forum (phaedrus, tcaud, machintruc, etc.). as i said, i can't emphasize enough that i don't think this display of     is who hitta really is, and i think that the videos of hitta (have you seen those btw?) go a long way in demonstrating this. hitta's outlook, as well as everything noticeable about his manner of behavior, on those videos is completely     and completely oriented towards abstract and inner philosophical issues. as i've said many times, i think hitta is a wonderful example of a TiNi mesh, but i also think that you'd find him a very different person if not under the guise of the internet.
as for actual similarities between hitta and IEIs, this can be a double-edged sword. for one thing, both hitta and the more stereotypical IEIs are deeply philosophical, introspective, and abstract thinkers (think especially of people like snegledmaca). on the other hand, many of the stereotypical IEIs demonstrate a sort of     aura, sometimes the "giggly girl" sort of persona that expat sometimes talks about. however, if you think about it in terms of information metabolism, i think there are some very obvious parallels; look at for example how scarlettlux (EIE, i think, but maybe IEI) treats the forum social dynamics -- the socionics community cliques, if you will (think socionix). she almost naturally goes along with the socionix (99% beta) practice of dividng up the forum into the groups of the noble and indubitably correct and the stupid. kristiina and jarno have also done this. hitta's reaction to "the whole forum" not supporting his ideas and thus stifling him is a similar display of Fe preference, and possibly also the legendary beta aristocracy. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:05, 14 February 2008 (GMT)
I essentially agree with niffweed, also because I think LII presents some other difficulties, for instance, I don't think hitta seems to have     as PoLR, I think     is more like it. As to niffweed's comment on what I said about     aura, what would be really interesting would be to see a girl displaying this kind of Ti-IEI personality. I see IEIs as using     to sort of navigate their way in the world of people, even as they may perceive themselves as ultimately loners on their     path. This is how I see snegledmaca and how I think he sees himself. In the real world, if I may be blunt, I think it is obvious that even a minimally attractive IEI girl will get a far better response, and therefore be far more successful, and so find it more rewarding, when focusing on their "Fe-IEIness" in that manner than many men, let alone someone like hitta (or Phaedrus, I daresay). That kind of IEI men - if not successful in, or inclined to, presenting a Hugh-Grant-like kind of personality - would "turn" to the sort of "Ti-IEI" we are discussing here, which is actually more like using     to make sense of what they perceive through     and    . I think that some people like Robert Graves and H.G. Wells may well have been IEIs of this "sort". Expat 08:14, 14 February 2008 (GMT)
But isn't this quite drastic? Deciding that one type is prone to have a special subtype within? Like what about the fifteen other types? do any of them have this same sort of thing happening? If you open up the possibility for one you can't dismiss all the others. I still think you've simply mistyped certain forum members. Both of you haven't adequately convinced me that you know the difference between strong and valued     and weak but valued    . Hitta clearly displays the latter. More emphasis should be placed not on what he says but how he says it. He's looking to others to create a positive atmosphere but can't create this himself. So my main qualm here is that this Ni-Ti theory flies in the face of Model A and would require a complete functional restructuralization, which neither have you have provided. Misutii 20:48, 14 February 2008 (GMT)
First of all, forget about subtypes. This is not a structural argument about the legitimacy of estimative subtypes; this is about hitta himself. if there were such a thing as an IEI Ti-subtype, presumably hitta might be a good example. However, Ti subtypes or not, there ARE people who are allegedly IEIs who appear to use a lot of    . consider the disputed IEIs such as hitta, phaedrus, jarno, etc., but also people like snegledmaca and kioshi, who are much less widely disputed. additionally, there are elements of yourself as well as of users like loki and perhaps glamourama that seem highly intellectually inclined, on a level that could superficially be seen as NT-ish. now, again; if you think that hitta is a completely     person, similar to somebody like hotelambush, mysticsonic, or logos, then you are being blind to the kind of person that hitta actually is. those     types have very different styles of discourse than does hitta, but more importantly, hitta's videos demonstrate that he is a much more Ni-inclined person than he seems to appear based on his idiotic theorizing. similarly, i think that there is an     component to hitta which you can't see; the same as i think that there's an     component to people like phaedrus, jarno, snegledmaca, and kioshi, that is likewise invisible over the facade of the internet. you have not yet addressed this idea, other than the fact that you can't see his    . to that i have one major question: have you watched his videos? if not, watch them. if you still can't see at that point that he's an     type, then i see little reason to continue this discussion. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:18, 14 February 2008 (GMT)
misutii, it's not a "Ni-Ti theory", not in the sense of requiring functional restructuring. It's about having Ni and Ti as quadra values. Expat 23:07, 14 February 2008 (GMT)
  • I have just watched the video and it hasn't changed my mind but the discussion in the thread has provided me with more avenues with which to discuss this matter.     appears, from the video, to be weak and not valued. He's relying on his logical function     when talking of the matter of ethics. Furthermore     is lacking in this video and I don't know where you see it. You claim     is "philosophical", and I agree, but doesn't being philosophical have more to do with asking questions rather than providing answers? Hitta appears emotionally restrained, seems as if he's using logic as his strength to protect his weakness.     in IEIs manifests itself differently. I know murder is wrong, why? because when I hurt another person I feel guilt and shame and these indicate that I’ve done something wrong. However, there are times when murder is justified, when it may be the lesser of the two evils, such as in defending yourself or those you care for. Culture and society doesn’t decide that murder is wrong, only when it is wrong. How do I know this? Because those feelings of guilt and shame that I mentioned are inherent in humans, where they don’t exist is due to a psychological disorder which can be found in sociopaths. (This is my honest view)
    focused philosophy is not like Hitta’s video and if you believe so you’re deceiving yourself. Take Kioshi for example, you mentioned him, he has the     vibe, it’s more along the lines of buddhism or nihilism, which seem different at first but consider the buddhist principle “There is only emptiness”, we are empty, accept this and you’ll overcome your suffering. Nihilists indulge in their suffering because they’re afraid of the emptiness, they’re like Buddhists that got stuck on the first step.
So far I’m confident that     is his primary function, it’s his natural most inherent way of interacting.     is creative, I can’t explain this myself so I’m gonna copy/paste from the wiki page: “The individual likes to apply his analytical skills and insight to specific situations, relating them to the bigger picture. He also enjoys discussing idealized circumstances or what could be rather than what is. Consequently, he usually has high standards (even unreasonably so) for those around him. He tends to like people who have set high personal standards and yet need assistance reaching them.”     is role function, the way he defines relations between humans as based upon social roles means he likely relies on social roles to direct his behaviour. Niffweed you’re the one misinterpreting    , you can read the     page all day if you want and then spit the sentences back at me but if you read into Model A you’ll notice that     in your super-ego block means this is your weakest function, Expat has the same problem, think of    , we have it weak in common, we don’t really value physical comfort, why? not because we’re inherently stronger beings but because our physical senses are less developed and so we are more unaware of discomfort. Expat I don't see valued     in hitta, differentiate strong and valued     vs. strong but not valued     for me. It doesn't matter if his     is strong, if it's not valued he doesn't exemplify beta values. I see valued as denoting a certain amount of respect for the function. Misutii 00:15, 15 February 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Implied

  • Current consensus: Image:Introverted_intuition.gif Image:Extroverted_ethics.gif
<--- the IEI mark here isn't my own. whoever did it should own up to it (discojoe, i assume?) unless by "collective agreement" or "consensus" you all mean "discojoe." Implied 00:59, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
The IEI mark reflects the fact that, in the table, more people believe you to be IEI than anything else. this is not a strong consensus but it is nonetheless a consensus. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 17:20, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
Consensus policy changed. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:17, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): should i even put anything here? what a mess. -- Implied 05:59, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
6 1 1 1
  • one odd thing that i really don't understand about the EIE/IEI typings is that i'd have to have one of the most close-minded duals out there. i think it's obvious that i don't take or appreciate     very well, as evidenced from my discussions with the extremely delusional UDP.
  • oddly, if i ask my friends & family members about my type, just letting them read descriptions, they go directly towards SLI (and yes, i let them read them all.) i haven't strongly considered it, but it's interesting that i'm being perceived as an IEI on the board. i've also realized how incredibly biased and easily swayed many forum members are. i don't take it personally at this point, but i find it, frankly, completely ridiculous that objection puts you in a     quadra, especially when the facts don't add up. i haven't seen any facts myself that point me directly to IEI, except for being rude at times in a beta fashion. and when i do that, it's generally very, very intentional. implied 09:29, 6 January 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Discussion Area

  • one argument for     valuing is that i do generally tend to do this thing where i'll trust the person until they've otherwise proven themselves untrustworthy. i can't really say that i have cast-iron control over my emotional state (a point towards       ?) on the other hand, i've also fallen into situations where "charming" people can sort of blind me. and if they do, and wind up having horrible motives, i can get upset, stay upset, over a betrayal of trust. i haven't seen anything significantly     about myself -- unless you consider that wanting to be around people who are NOT in a rotten mood or throwing fits as    -valuing. i also dislike the sort of "poking" that some types do. like, "are you okay?" every 15 minutes. or trying to jostle me too much to get a reaction out of me. i figure this sort of poking pretty much completely in line with    -valuing extrovert behavior. Implied 07:52, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Well don't ask me why (or, better, I could give a long response I am not going to because it would generate a long discussion, probably) but I think she's a Fi-ESI (strats description even mentions how they can fall in the same situations you describe pretty easily in spite of their Fi dominance!) FDG 21:12, 3 January 2008 (GMT)FDG
  • INFp --Discojoe 00:30, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • (see below for my typing) Implied's most recent video possibly could seem ESI, but I don't much get that vibe from her. She does not talk about people in the same way other ESIs I know do. She does not much analyze their ethical qualities. In my opinion, she seems irrational, and Fe valuing. However I do not really know what the difference between her states are enough to really say. Implied, could you perhaps comment on this comment you once made: "why do you expect people to act logically?" I believe that was it. And just the general nature of why you feel people are not supposed to "make sense", etc. UDP 14:03, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • i think it's plenty reasonable to not go in *expecting* straight logic and rational behavior from people. some people do stupid things in the spur of the moment, and plenty of people make decisions based on feelings. i don't believe that these things can be subjected to cold, hard logic or that *everything* is capable of being analyzed and put into a little box. i think people are generally more complex than this. people do dumb things all the time and act very irrationally. is it rational and logical to get pregnant when you're 16 and refuse to give up the kid or have an abortion, no matter what? no, not at all, but people do things like this all the time. what's so hard to understand about this? and is this    -preference you're talking about being based on me celebrating christmas with my family and not pitching a vocal fit about it, or what? Implied 01:03, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
  • IEI of the Ni variety is my bet. If not, then probably ILI-Ni. The preceding unsigned comment was added by gilly
  • duals? ♥ Implied 01:09, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
  • ILI I get along with her fine, I don't see what she has in common with any of the IEI's on this board outside of snegledmaca who kind of seems ILI. I think that she's Gamma at least, I don't have much trouble understanding her perspective when she posts something. Aut0 16:50, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • i agree that i usually see your points of view very easily. you notice some things about quadra behavior that are very reaffirming IMO and are actually similar to some of my own observations. that's why i thought you should post more. i keep wondering why IEI keeps on being the default answer here while you (and a number of other deltas) seem quite agreeable to me. oh, oddly, i remind myself a little bit of snegledmaca, too. Implied 01:03, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Implied is IEI. I mentioned in the forum that Implied is one of the few types who I identify with the most. (I probably didn't use the same words tho). Well, I'm bringing it up because Snegledmaca is a close second for me, and lately Scarlettlux is definitely in top 3. I think Snegledmaca is clearly IEI and it's further indication that Impled is probably IEI too. And to be quite honest, I've never quite shook the feeling that aut0 looks EIE to me. Kristiina 20:42, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
  • i think aut0 looks like heathiep. i don't think snegledmaca is really the clearest example of an IEI, either. his principles, i guess, how he deals with people and has sort of openly admitted to treating them poorly -- i can barely imagine myself making some of the statements he does, just because i think i really do value my friends quite a bit. what i'm thinking of was one of his earlier posts where he said something like, "i just use people then get rid of them when i no longer need them." i can't exactly recall right now. i just think we have a similarly "soft" style of writing sometimes. really superficial impressions. implied 09:33, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
  • We should start a club, what should we call ourselves? For some reason Arctic Avengers popped into my head, stupid counter-strike. Hah

    Oh yeah, implied, I remember the post you're talking about. It was sneg describing from his friends view that he treated them like they were data or treated them as if they weren't human. (Not actually saying that snegledmaca does that, just reciting what I remember) Aut0 17:34, 6 January 2008 (GMT)

  • no joke, we should start a club. fwiw, i also considered for quite a while that i could be the same type as jessica. there have been a few times on the board that i've gotten that weird "watching a video of myself" vibe from her. regarding sneg's post, i'd be incredibly upset with myself if i felt like i were behaving like that. i just wonder how much my own behavior is influenced since i'm living at home with the SFj to pwn all SFjs. you've talked about some money-related issues that you've had with gammas. i used to have these issues with my mother, but i've had to adapt somewhat. i mean, money is something very important, but i believe if your whole life is nothing but the process of making money and being some shitty cash cow, life sort of loses meaning, heh. implied 16:26, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • IEI We seem to not be able to talk about technical things at all, as of late. My desire for clarity, understanding one's line of reasoning, and logical coherence seems to leave both of us dissatisfied. Maybe ILI, but I am not so sure. I can see us as being opposites, as compared to other Fi dominants, Implied is strangely vague and... implied. Perhaps this is just a phase, but, now that we are actually discussing things we disagree about, there seems to be little connection at all - in terms of how to discuss or approach matters/subjects. There seems to be little comparison between Implied and the EIIs I talk to. Maybe an outside shot at being ISFp, but, does not strike me as a caregiver, or as a sensory type. At this time, Te polr seems plausible UDP 08:45, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
    i'll add here again that, i find it ridiculous that you're claiming i'm a    -polr type when apparently you're the one attempting to create your own definition of "what an ESTj is." when i get pissed at you is when you're obviously taking some standard ideas about what an ESTj is and applying them to yourself when they're completely out of step with reality. i'm sorry, but checking with reality is quite important to me. apparently, it's not so much to you. i have a Te-polr because i don't accept your self-typing? sure. honestly, i rarely have this sort of problem communicating with, expat, for example. or niffweed. and i believe these are fairly obvious Te-dominants and Te-creatives. implied 15:20, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
    Lol just cuz you tried to hit on her but she bounced you off - FDG
    lol, i think you're probably closer to the truth than not. implied 09:14, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
    They call that "technical things" now, eh? Kudos for the fantasy UDP! - FDG
    hah, i must admit unless "technical things" means "why i need a     type and why i'm right and you're wrong," there has been no talk of "technical things." implied 11:08, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
  • IEI --Joy 22:06, 7 January 2008 (GMT)

*IEI; I've seen blog extracts. --Ezra 20:00, 29 January 2008 (GMT)

*After having talked to Maria at length, we decided together that a Ne/Si preference was most likely. She claims she has an aversion to Se, and reacts badly when people attempt to get her to do something that they perceive as needing to be done. Control is a big issue, and while an IEI would gladly let the SLE take control over certain aspects of their life, she is essentially intolerant to it. On top of this she reacts particularly poorly to aggression (weak, undervalued Se). She is also blatently an Introtim. No one doubts that. That leaves LII, SEI, EII and SLI. She identifies most strongly with Rationality, although Irrationality is still a possibility in my eyes. She says she's more comfortable with Fi than Fe, which makes EII most likely. However, she could simply be mistaking her Fi valuing for Fi ego. But I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. EII --Ezra 01:15, 30 January 2008 (GMT)

I retract the EII claim. I no longer have reason to believe that what she says is true. Rather, I'll use objective evidence. IEI. --Ezra 21:32, 2 February 2008 (GMT)

  • funny but your own self-descriptions and posts are about as believable. shaky fucking grounds when you can't decide whether you like work, whether you're an aggressor or a caregiver, whether you're anything ever. make one statement about your personality that you can stick by and we'll talk about objective evidence. implied 18:14, 9 February 2008 (GMT)
  • I think I'm almost convinced! I'll say SLI. the IEI typing is absolutely ridiculous and I'm sure she agrees! :o <3 Glamourama 05:07, 30 January 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Jessica

  • Current consensus: Image:Introverted_sensing.gif Image:Extroverted_logic.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable):
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
1 1 5

[edit] Discussion Area

  • ESE. I am clearly all up on Gilly's nuts, so it should be obvious that I'm his beneficiary. Jessica 11:32, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
  • SLI So self-evident I don't even know what to say. Weren't people questioning her as SLE or LSI? Lol@that. I'm starting to worry sometimes what sort of sheltered existence some people lead. Dynamicism 22:34, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I say LSI. This is a flimsy example, but I want to counter the ridiculous comment above. She's demonstrated enough prejudice, ignorance, and systematic thought of "the way things ought to be" that i feel very confident that SLI is impossible. In a lot of ways she resembles people like UDP and Jimbean in her patterns of dealing with situations that do not fit in with her preconceived notions of what should be. Not to sound like machintruc here, but -- there really is no other way to say it -- she's very narrow minded. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:47, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
Gee, way to be prejudiced about about prejudiced thinking - yeah, attribute it all to LSIs! Dynamicism 22:51, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
  • You're going to base my whole personality on how I think children should be raised? Have you even taken into account all the other aspects of my personality? I admit I came off a little strongly with that topic, but to say i'm "LSI" just because of it, well, that doesn't mean much. I fail to see how else i've demonstrated this "LSI-ishness" other than in the children thread. Other examples would be great.
You'll have them. I'm a tad busy right now. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:07, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
first of all, prejudice itself is obviously not only applicable to LSIs, but in her case reflects    -creative by the way that she stood by one opinion and completely refused to acknowledge any other. this is not something i've found in only one thread; she has very detailed and equally discriminating views on other moral topics, the one i remember most vividly being the issue of teen sex.
the other thing that i would point to is a complete lack of regard for any topics    . this can be somewhat difficult to view online, and i might be dead wrong in this interpretation, but i don't see her caring one iota about    . If you compare her to a delta ST type like heath, who talks very extensively about health, comfort, and issues of concrete and direct personal value, she engages in none of the same topics at all. sometimes i wonder what she does talk about, other than to reveal her complete ignorance of the real world (which my biases might be associating with    ), but where she does enter discussions, she does appear to use a lot of     to rigidly define her viewpoint in a similar way as UDP. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:52, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
See, what is BS about that remark concerning "Se to rigidly define" her/my viewpoint is that the "rigidity" you speak of is that it is very possibly because I am in fact what I say I am. It seems a terrible idea to associate thinking one is sure of his own reasonings as meaning Se creative, or Ti dominance.
- aside from my socionics type, what other rigidity are you referring to? The hair washing bit?
It does not seem that Jessica and I are both beta. I do not see her as LSI at this time. I could see us being mirrors in delta, but not beta.     valuing, both of us? I disagree. But please don't think that I "disagree" and believe in myself, that means I am acting even more like an LSI. UDP 15:04, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
the hell you are. you're not even in the same club. implied 18:37, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
one other detail possibly of note: she may not consider possibilities very thoroughly. when i told her i didn't think she was SLI, she more or less scoffed, but eventually accepted that it made more sense. this led me to wonder whether the thought of her not being SLI had even crossed her mind. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:52, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
(not a vote yet) Niffweeed, would you totally disregard ILI? I agree with you about the apparent low focus on    . Granted, focus on     isn't visible, either, but online it isn't always. I can see her as broadly Gamma, irrational, with zero concern for     yet longing for    . In fact the latter seems pretty clear to me. Expat 04:39, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
i've heard that, and it doesn't strike me as terribly likely but it's not a possibility i've explored in depth either. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 05:21, 4 January 2008 (GMT)

I've considered nearly every type there is...note how many times I state I'm not sure of my type. I'm still not. I am open to suggestions or else I wouldn't be here. I'm simply stating that I don't agree with LSI. I've considered it. I thought it may have fit. It doesn't. People have "controversial" opinions on everything; the only difference I see with myself is that I'm willing to voice these opinions -- whereas others are willing to be "politically correct" or not say anything at all. Having strong opinions on certain subjects makes me a certain type? Outside of being openly judgemental about certain issues, I don't see where your arguement is for me being LSI. Jessica129

  • Uh, have you considered that we might be the same type? I was thinking of typing exactly what you just typed a couple of minutes ago. I thought that we might be the same type on more than one occasion before this *shrug*. Aut0 02:01, 4 January 2008 (GMT)

I think she's SLI. Almost everything she talks about is Si. She even jokes about gambling and drinking and what-not - her humor is entirely based on Si, and it's very dry in an "I have no Fe" way. When she isn't talking about Si, she's talking about work and other Te-things. She seems to be in a down period of her life, and that could contribute to mis-typing, but I see Si and Te. Not a lot of Te, but I certainly don't see even a splash of Fe. I can't see how she could even be in a quadra that values Fe. I thought she was a bit judgmental about children in the thread referenced above too (for which we should probably find a link) but judgmental does not = LSI. While it could point away from dual-seeking Ne, it could also be related to her upbringing or some personal experience or something else. I think her displays of Si outweigh that. --Slacker Mom 16:38, 4 January 2008 (GMT)

Could you elaborate on in what ways you see    ? How do you see her humor about drinking and gambling (and anything else) as    ? I really don't understand where you're coming from at all. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 17:16, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
I think prejudice manifest itself differentlt depending on whether Ti is prevailent or not. IMO Ti would use predjudice as a form of establishing their identity (expressing belonging to some group) as such and such a person.i.e my people don't like '----' or those people like '---' so they're different from us or I don't like '---' I am one of these people. Jessica doesn't seem to do that she just doesn't like what she hears.Ti (beta mostly I think) also seems to uses prejudice to incapsulate a enemy into something identifiable to hate to drive their anger and to further make a bond within their own group (I think betas also compete among themselves as to who has more belonging, like who is more of a democrat, who can say the worst things about Bush). Also I think LSI/SLE use prejudice as way of building trust, so if you support something that a certain group supports you are seen as being a 'good guy' or trustworthy and you are likely to be given stuff from members of the group you identify with. But anyway I don't see any of this behaviour in Jessica, just prejudice and I think prejudice is universal amoung types. So I don't think she is a LSI.--Electric 17:24, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
i could certainly see her acting as beta aristocracy, but i'll be fair here: i don't have any real information for or against. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:24, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
Her jokes are about indulging herself with sensory type pleasures, and about being lazy. I do think Si-types joke about that kind of thing. At least the Si-type people I know do that - self-deprecating humor about Si gone awry. --Slacker Mom 20:41, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Prejudice? Okay, we're taking this too far. How can you gather I'm prejudice from a few sentences on how i'm going to raise my children and the fact that I don't think teens should be having sex? That's insane to me.--jessica129
I personally don't think you're that bad, you just sound conservative but hey...--Electric 17:52, 4 January 2008 (GMT)

I admit I am very conservative when it comes to certain issues, I'm not denying that, but I don't see why you would call me prejudice. And I don't see how this has anything to do with type. Everyone has strong beliefs about certain things.--jessica129

I think you're prejudiced because I think your viewpoints are predetermined, uninformed, and stupid. That's all there is to it. Don't balk over the "OH NOEZ HE SAID IM PREJUDICED THAT MEANS IM AN EVIL NAZI SOCIOPATH BECUZ ALL PREJUDICED PEOPLE ARE EVIL NAZIS" sort of social stigma. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:20, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Blah, blah, blah. You have yet to prove how I am LSI. Whether I am prejudice or not has nothing to do with my type. You keep bringing up my LSI-ishness without solid facts. Keep talking out of your ass.--jessica129
I think that I've made a halfway decent case on the top half of this page. Try reading the ENTIRE page before making comments that further demonstrate your ignorance of what's going on around you. I know it's massive and completely unreadable. Deal with it. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:41, 4 January 2008 (GMT)

* one vote for SLI. i don't think you've shown enough rigidity to be considered LSI. i can't really compare you to some more clear LSIs on the board such as JimBeam. i also have heard some other SLIs such as electric talk about how the whole Si-base = healthy! thing is overdone. i don't think jessica's brand of conservativeness is really all that beta. again, comparing you to say, JimBeam, who seems much more politically motivated. i don't see a real case for    -creative, either. if anything else, i might suggest LSE. i think electric made some great points regarding how     works in beta, as well. Implied 00:05, 5 January 2008 (GMT)

so what is that a vote for, exactly? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 18:09, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
SLI Implied 19:41, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
actually, removing my vote for a while. changed my mind. implied 09:17, 6 January 2008 (GMT)

* I'm willing to flow with confidence in Se; I could easily see Beta ST. Aristocratic most likely. Since, she's an ISTP, I'm going to go with Beta ST. Most likely SLE. -- Ezra 17:17, 5 January 2008 (GMT)

  • She s such an obvious SLI (Si subtype) that people being convinced of otherwise just because of one discussion of hers seriously makes me question all their ability in typing. No sense of group belonging, no camaraderie, no displays of extraversion from her at all. A quick comparison with Herzy shows how different they are. FDG 09:49, 6 January 2008 (GMT)FDG
All of this applies equally well to ILI, too. What the heck, it's not a strong opinion but I'll give that as my vote. Expat 10:22, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
It doesn't apply to ILI in the slightest. Ever seen any ILI showing around how comfortable they are with Si topics in the same way she does it? For a demonstration, look at the most recent thread on sex by Cone, and look at the way she responded, and compare her response with what the original poster said. It's obvious that she has more confidence in Si than him, and he's a well-recognized ILI-Te FDG 10:38, 6 January 2008 (GMT)FDG
What you just said has nothing to do with your arguments just above, which referred exclusively to    , and it was them I was addressing. As for "Jessica having more confidence in Si because of the sex talk" -- yes, so she has more confidence in sex talk than Cone -- duh. I'd never have imagined that (sorry for the sarcasm). reyn_til_runa is rather confident in that as well, when she's in the right mood. Expat 11:48, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
i think she comes off as very confident in    . i think her recent video seemed like someone who is probably far more confident in sensory matters than most ILIs would consider themselves. i mean, she just strikes me as aware and probably confident in her appearance/attractiveness. just going by personal anecdotes from more obvious ILIs such as reyn_til_runa or niffweed, i couldn't imagine them having that sort of confidence. i just usually get the impression that ILIs don't pay much attention to this sort of thing. perhaps i'm reading too much into it, but my impression from the video at least was a sure one of SP. i can't really see ILI as an option. implied 10:46, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
Regarding the recent video, I think it's one good evidence for    , indeed. My reasons for ILI (and, again, it's not a strong opinion) have more to do with her broader outlook, which seemed more Gamma than Delta. A bit of vindictiveness, Fi connected to Se not to Ne, the lack of the Delta "inclusive aristocracy". The kind of main interests she displays (gambling etc) I'd see as more connected to Se-Ni than Si-Ne. Expat 11:48, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
well, i'd tend to think that vindictiveness/vengefulness would probably make a    /    quadra more likely, although i don't know what posts you're specifically referring to here. i agree that gambling does seem slightly more Se-Ni, but:
1) she lives in vegas. call me silly, but i don't think it's unreasonable to imagine that it's more common to spend your weekends gambling if you live in vegas.
2) hasn't cracka or some other     type mentioned these sorts of interests? i mean, i can reasonably see why gambling might appeal to an ISTp. implied 13:05, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
No, she doesn't live in Vegas, she spent a weekend there. She said that very clearly. And sure, any type can enjoy gambling, but it's different. Cracka enjoys going to bars, and casinos, etc, for the fun, with (or to meet) people. Jessica goes there on her own, and she always gives making money as a strong reason. Now, I'm not saying that an SLI could not do those things or have those motivations; I'm explaining why I don't see the gambling as    . If you go to a casino - as many tourists do - to enjoy the atmosphere, have fun, play a bit here and a bit there, that's Si-Ne. But if you play usually at the same casino, at the same game, with the specific hope of making money, that's Se-Ni. Ah, and back to the "sex" thing -- who's the poster who's most comfortable in posting nude pictures of herself? Has anyone sugggested that she's a     type? I mean, these things are more blurred. Expat 13:28, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
ah, for some reason i was under the impression that she lived in or near vegas. or in nevada. at any rate, i see what you're getting at. i just get the impression that she's near a considerable amount of casinos. i know that on the east coast, where i live, gambling isn't nearly as common. "the poster who's most comfortable in posting nude pictures of herself" -- i assume this would be anielka. i tended to think her motivations were more artistic or to shock, rather than say, "look at how awesome my body is and look how confident i am in my appearance." at any rate, i don't know. you might be right about Te-INTp. implied 13:52, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
Well, as I said, I think it's blurred. I'm just raising a few points I think should be raised. Expat 13:57, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I'm changing. I think SLI. I'm scrapping the SLE vote. --Ezra 01:47, 13 January 2008 (GMT)
I'm removing my vote for LSI. The fact that about 100% of people here are seeing something completely different suggests to me that I'm missing something, and in all honesty I haven't devoted a great deal of thought to jessica's type at all. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 17:59, 13 January 2008 (GMT)
  • ISTp. Far too whiney to be anything else. :) Thehotelambush 04:37, 10 February 2008 (GMT)

ISTP's aren't whiney. I am an ISTJ. No wait, ESTP. No wait, INTP. You people know nothing. Socionics is a load of BS. The preceding unsigned comment was added by jessica129

probably the best comment on the wiki to date. implied 01:54, 11 February 2008 (GMT)
LSI is back, just because i don't see what else. still not a confident typing primarily because i'm confused as to why everybody sees creative Te; especially those that see delta values and SLI. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 17:19, 11 February 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Joy

  • Current consensus: Image:Extroverted_logic.gif Image:Introverted_intuition.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): LIE Joy
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
2 6

[edit] Discussion Area

Now that she's pointed to Celeste's typing thread, you can see all my reasons for thinking she's LIE there. ;) --Tanehem the Necromancer 16:17, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
  • ESE. Unfortunately obvious. This woman is kryptonite to Te and Ni. Her showboating herself around on the internet as some proactive, goal-driven, success-oriented woman belies her utter frivolousness. She is pure ESE. Please don't get duped into her fantasyland of identity fabrication :(. Thanks. Dynamicism 19:34, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
Post something constructive or fuck off you asshole. No one likes you or thinks you're funny. --Discojoe 20:10, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
I wish I was trying to be funny. But I'm not joking. Dynamicism 20:37, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
The whole point of this is to be constructive, and the tone of your post was mostly mocking and belligerent.--Discojoe 23:05, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
I'm not mocking. This is what I dead seriously believe about her. Dynamicism 00:21, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • LIE. Joy's reactions to holiday times do not strike me as those typical of other ESEs I know, for one thing. I have a hard time seeing her as an alpha SF UDP 02:31, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • - Why must ESEs be traditional regarding the holidays? If anything, I'd find it just as likely that an ESE would be inclined to uproot tradition. In fact, Gulenko mentioned this here. Implied 03:29, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
I don't think Joy is ESE, I do think she's LIE (if she was something else, not ESE), but while IME ESEs to tend to be traditional regarding holiday times, I don't think that would be a good reason to argue against that type. Expat 04:47, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
I tend to slightly disagree with Ashton on ESE being the next likely type. I do agree with you that like/dislike for holidays doesn't point towards anything particularly. I do think that Joy's ideas regarding gender roles are more telling. I think that's probably more important in any assessment of Joy's personality. I've read his arguments for    -valuing, though. I think some sort of beta may be more likely, if only because I think any    -valuing type might appreciate her style of argumentation. The way that she describes    -types as (paraphrasing here) "looking for a challenge" or "needing challenging partners" seems more appealing to someone from a resolute quadra in general. Implied 06:23, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
"tend to slightly disagree" and Beta -- so what are you saying? EIE? Expat 06:27, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
i'm saying that a Ni-EIE seems more likely IMO, if she's    -dominant. it's easy for me to see her as a career/success-focused EIE. i can't really see her as alpha, either. i don't have a strong reason to believe LIE. same thing regarding discojoe as ESI. Implied 07:12, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
I think the success-focused EIEs go about it very differently. Joy seems more money-focused than success-focused, that's a key difference. Expat 10:24, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
Fair enough. My comment was concerning the Fe aspects in regard to holiday time, particularly the dislike she mentions in regard to Christmas Cards, and other situations where certain social niceties are more or less forced - or that is how she seems to interpret them. It does not seem that Joy values     UDP 05:31, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
It does not. Expat 06:07, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Something ethical for certain, ExFx. The way she easily manipulates people and crowds towards her opinion, disregarding any factual accuracy or logical accuracy of her "opinion" can only point towards those typings. Not that I think ExFx are prone to this, but when less than healthy they surely are the most likely to end up this way. FDG 11:01, 4 January 2008 (GMT)FDG
  • Three things.

1. I both agree and disagree with you, Implied. I agree that there is no strong reason to see either discojoe as ESI or Joy as LIE. There have been no real threads on their types at the16types.info, implying that they've agreed together that they're duals without consulting Papa Ezra first (just kidding guys, don't take offence, I'm just a kid). However, I disagree with you on the basis that I am Se-valuing, and I certainly do not appreciate Joy's style of argumentation. Any point she disagrees with is remedied with "lol" or the laughing smiley icon. It's as if she's completely averse to any combat whatsoever. She doesn't even try to make an effort to look tough like an Se HA person would in combat. Quite frankly, I find said aversion pathetic and tiring. At the same time, I do think Joy makes some fantastic points. Not necessarily arguments, but points. Some of her advice is of very high quality. I think this is what makes Joy such a valuable member of the forum.

  • thanks for the response, ezra. i see what you mean. perhaps i'm interpreting    -valuing as something else, as i've come to not really appreciate it either. i don't necessarily see her as "backing down" from arguments, but i agree on the "lol!" bit which does seem a bit off. i thought they were fairly certain of duality or something similarly complimentary, though. Implied 00:48, 5 January 2008 (GMT)

2. Expat, I too am focused on money. That's my primary reason for going into law. Does this make me Gamma? No. So why should that count towards anything when typing Joy, even if it is an argument against her being focused on money over success?

The point was EIE as opposed to LIE, I wouldn't use that argument if SLE was being considered. Many types want to make money; but the HA of the EIE and LIE make them similar, yet, different, in that area.Expat 19:03, 4 January 2008 (GMT)

3. FDG, what you're essentially arguing is that Joy, to you, is Fe leading. This is because while you say "something ethical for certain", you talk about crowd manipulation and disregard for factual and logical accuracy, which is quite clearly Fe/Ti preference. The question is a) why do you think this and b) do you really think she is an ExE? Now, I trust Salawa when she says that Joy is emotionally inexpressive, and I don't think Joy would lie when she says 'I'll show you how emotionally expressive I am on webcam', and I highly doubt that she is simply out to prove a point (that she is LIE). However, while I think she probably isn't Ethical, I don't think a webcam is particularly satisfactory evidence to show that she is Fi- over Fe-valuing. After all, you've seen the video of me. Am I particularly emotionally expressive? Of course not. Why? Because I'm not good with Fe, by definition. And I highly doubt Joy is either. -- Ezra 18:42, 4 January 2008 (GMT)

  • point that i agree with FDG on. i've never really considered this a mark of    -leading, just generally being shifty and factually dishonest/a fact-twister. i'm curious as to where you read this or where you get that this    /    preference. personally, i'm not concerned with "being logical" as much as "being factually accurate." i don't believe that emotional expression, on webcam, could be a sign for or against    -leading either. don't some    -types have good control over their emotional expression? Implied 00:48, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
    • Basically, what implied said word-to-word. I think that Fe types - especially ENFJs - do not need to be emotionally expressive but rather just have a lot of control over it, as Rick explains well in his description of ESEs and EIEs on his website. The way she is able to influence people, as opposed to others that just tend to present "the facts", is something that still surprises me and an ability that I don't possess at all but that'd be interesting to try. How come I am typed as being in a Fe quadra and she isn't, when this ability has always been related to Fe, it's misteryous to me. FDG 09:47, 5 January 2008 (GMT)FDG
      • yeah, i agree with you yet again on this. one of my benchmark IRL    -creatives is my sister-in-law, as some know. she's got what i would call one of the stoniest faces i've ever seen. she's not very emotionally expressive at all, yet i can honestly get very good consensus among many users that she's a    -creative. i have no idea why emotional inexpression is a point for    -dominance. implied 01:25, 12 February 2008 (GMT)
  • ESE Zeia 20:13 (EST) 10 January 2008
LIE Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:07, 10 February 2008 (GMT)
  • LIE I remember a while ago arguing about her type in a thread and I was convinced she wasn't LIE until I got Te-PoLR'd, lol, but she pm'd me afterwards and gave me a proper explanation and I've been convinced ever since Misutii 01:13, 14 February 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Kamangir

  • Current consensus: Image:Introverted_sensing.gif Image:Extroverted_ethics.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): I say SEI. Kamangir 1:18, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
1

[edit] Discussion Area

  • Does my self-typing count? If not, remove it--Kamangir 23:15, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
It doesn't count towards consensus, no. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:52, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
Policy changed. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:11, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
Also please sign your name next to your self-typing for verification. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:23, 3 January 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Kristiina

  • Current consensus: Image:Extroverted_ethics.gif Image:Introverted_intuition.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable):
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
4 1

[edit] Discussion Area

  • EIE. Perhaps the user on the forum with the most apparent intertype relations. In some respects she seems less argumentative than many other betas, but she certainly does not have a home with Te-valuing types. She also takes about every possible opportunity to declare her enthusiasm about particular topics. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:35, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Adding my agreement to EIE, but will edit to say more later. --Tanehem 12:35, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I think she's very EIE. When we first met her, Rick and I thought that she seemed a bit too little "Fe" for Fe dominance, but I spent a lot of time with her: EJ fits best, low concern for Si, preference for Ti over Te or Fi - and, what's more, she fully understands why she's EIE. She sees the world, and people, clearly through Fe eyes. Also, she tends to assume that's how others see things, too. She and PotatoSpirit naturally reached a comfortable level of interaction through playfulness. Everything fits really. I can't even see other type for her. Expat 14:57, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Her recent interactions with me were not particularly positive; anyway, I do think she's very clearly Fe, and the Se hidden agenda is a good explanation of part of her behavior I find hard to tolerate. I used to hold the position of her being an ESI but I changed my mind: part of the similarities I notice between EIEs and ESIs are centered upon negativism+constructivism (I think this is also why ESI-LSI and EIE-LIE couples are somewhat common)

FDG 16:18, 2 January 2008 (GMT)

Please explicitly state your type "vote." Sorry to be a stickler about this. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:35, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
  • LSI I've never been able to buy this EIE typing but at least she's in the right quadra. All this time, and it still makes me cringe whenever I read it... As far as I can tell she doesn't seem to have the gregariousness or charm typical of the EIE. Any     people think they're seeing would be nothing more than Suggestive/Dual-Seeking    , it never comes off to me as something primarily natural. And she seems more tense and controlled in a very Static way that is more typical of an Ixxj temperament, not the Dynamic Exxj temperament. She even *looks* like an Introvert. I don't see her sharing much insight about people either that I've always found typical of EIEs to do - they'll tell you a lot about other people's minds and their motives, etc. I used to talk to her a lot way back, and while I enjoyed talking to her, she never ever spoke in typical EIE subject matter. I've talked to Jadae a lot personally and she is utterly nothing like him (though they could be decent duals maybe lol). Unless we're going to pretend that Jadae isn't an EIE, which would be beyond absurd. My father is also EIE - Kristiina is nothing like him either. Are there any ENFjs around the forum that would even be able to really tell you if she was their identical? Blah blah. Anyway, I know I'm not going to make any headway in making a case for these things. I'll just be the Ron Paul of Socionics or something and do my part as the lone voice of obnoxious dissent. Dynamicism 02:30, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
Now you're just being blind. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:33, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
Not necessarily.... she was largely concurred as LSI/ESI before the EIE typing came about. That may have been closer to the correct type. I try to keep an open mind about it. Dynamicism 04:06, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
either you're blind or have no real information on her whatsoever and are trying to type based your poor recollection of old discussions. if you actually look at some of her posts they're full of    . IRL i've heard some people say that she's not all that     of an EIE, but on the forum it's quite obvious if you take ten seconds to look. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:39, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I think I'm EIE (I'm not sure it should be added to the vote, because I'm too biased). I can understand people not seeing me as very    . One ILE that I know in real life told me that he doesn't get any     from me. But he still thinks I'm EIE. It makes the most sense to him. I seem to have no problems interacting with LSI's and I seem to have the stupidest fights with LSI's. Hanging out in a delta group usually has a long effect on me - I'm stressed for a long time replaying different scenes of the interaction, trying to figure out if I should have said something different or if I should have said it in a different way. Mhhhh... replaying scenes of interaction. :) Is this a classic case of Fe combined with Ni? (PS! ending the paragraph with a rhetorical question... classic case of asker Reinin Dichotomy?) Kristiina 19:09, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • EIE. --Joy 23:28, 7 January 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Liveandletlive

  • Current consensus: Image:Extroverted_sensing.gif Image:Introverted ethics.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable):
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
2

[edit] Discussion Area

SEE per Boston. I could and almost certainly will expand on this because i think there were some interactions between us which were very significant and require further exposition. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:49, 5 February 2008 (GMT)

SEE. Agreed. Very significant interactions? How intriguing... --Admin 18:10, 6 February 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Logos

  • Current consensus: Image:Introverted_logic.gif Image:Extroverted_intuition.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): LII Logos 23:40, 8 January 2008 (GMT)
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
5

[edit] Discussion Area

LII. Carla 13:16, 9 January 2008 (GMT)


LII, sane subtype. --Tanehem the Necromancer 13:54, 9 January 2008 (GMT)

LII. I can't even think of arguments because it seems so obvious. Expat 21:49, 9 January 2008 (GMT)

LII. --Mm 15:29, 11 February 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Loki

  • Current consensus: Image:Introverted_intuition.gif Image:Extroverted_ethics.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): IEI --Loki 01:17, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
1

[edit] Discussion Area

[edit] Mendelh(Normal)

  • Current consensus: none
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): SEI Mendelh 18:00, 3 January 2008 (GMT) Normal
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
1 1

[edit] Discussion Area

  • Mendelh was always my alternative nickname. In any case, I guess Im SEI because there were people who told one i was one. And i agree for some reason.
  • I don't know but I don't remotely agree with SEI so I'm saying ILE. this is not a particularly well-informed typing. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:14, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
It's ok. I understand why I can't be SEI for some people. First of all, my english is not that good and my tone sometimes doesnt sound good enough clear to understand. I agree with dynamic, i can clearly see me (when i can) as a Si-Ne > Se-Ni. Any guess why i'm ILE to clear up this option to you? Mendelh 04:12, 4 January 2008 (GMT -4)
as i said, this is not a particularly well-informed typing. i think ILE is a lot more likely, but it's more of an instinctual reaction than a well-reasoned typing, and i can't articulate it very well or point to any specific evidence, other than the fact that i think you're probably alpha and bear certain resemblances in aura to     estimative. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:42, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
It's not a good evidence but it's help. I clearly don't see Gilly as a Dual to me. Even my relationship with my GF (which is supervisor, she is supervisee) its doesn't work either. My gf said the other day that IEE makes more sense in myself. Mendelh 13:45, 8 January 2008 (GMT -3)

[edit] Mikemex

  • Current consensus: none
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): IEE --Mikemex 12:24, 5 January 2008 (GMT) Mikemex
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
1 2

[edit] Discussion Area

Self appointed IEE here. --Mikemex 12:24, 5 January 2008 (GMT)

EIE. IEI as a second choice. The following discussion is copied from User talk:Niffweed17/userlist.
Why EIE? I'm starting to think you might be right but I'm not really sure yet. He's no Image:Extroverted_intuition.gif Image:Introverted_ethics.gif at any rate. --Tanehem 17:21, 27 December 2007 (GMT)
some Fe type, anyway. perhaps it's not the most informed of typings since i make every effort not to read his posts; they just make me mad. in large measure he looks like a madman running around looking for Ti (kinda like dee). it's very indicative that he might be the single user that seems to unequivocally reject legitimate socionics and instead subscribe to the Ti-constructs of tcaudilllg, hitta, and jarno. hitta is the only other person that does this to such a degree; even people like tcaud and phaedrus use some elements of classical socionics. EIE is my choice for the sole reason that he seems to be heavily inclined towards -- there is no other word for it -- philosophizing. he uses his own brutal understanding of socionics (and, it seems, other psychological disciplines) to further these philosophies, thus resulting conclusions like that bullshit that he posted a while back about logical types being less intellectually inclined than ethical types. would it ever even occur to an ILE to put all of those ideas together to say something like that?
i also wouldn't balk at IEI at all. Niffweed17 17:51, 27 December 2007 (GMT)
It occurred to me that he could be a dumb ILE (have we switched around or something?), but on the other hand he has -- according my subjective impression -- that kind of (extremely annoying) "I know the truth" attitude that seems typical of the Ni+Ti combination. I also haven't looked too deeply into it because he makes me want to vomit. --Tanehem 18:18, 27 December 2007 (GMT)
yah, i agree with that. Niffweed17 20:33, 27 December 2007 (GMT)
I just remembered that he really does make a mockery of Ti. --Tanehem 14:23, 29 December 2007 (GMT)
Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:16, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
People judge me from the surface, but I think it's far more complex than that. My father is my supervisor (LII) and a genius (he's an inventor and possess several patents of major technologies, even fundamental mechanical principles) so I think that over time and to protect my self-esteem, I've developed an emotional inhibition. Everyone who has experienced a long relationship with a supervisor knows that there are only two options: either to fall demoralized because no matter what you say the supervisor will always find a fault on it, or to build a thick skin and become quite resistant to criticism and persevering to hold your views. Probably such obstinate image gives people the impression that I'm an EIE while I'm not, simply because obstinacy is generally viewed as a sign of    . LII do make mistakes like everyone else and being an IEE myself makes it very difficult, almost impossible, to expose my arguments and get them recognized. So over time I've developed a tendency to state things in a categorical way (J) which pretends to make at least a bit of sense from the     perspective, which is not a natural way of thinking to me at all and consumes a lot of energy, leaving    , its counterpart, nearly inert. When I'm discussing I rarely if ever realize that I'm giving away the impression of being an arrogant because I just simply focus into making sense and finding out an useful conclusion, expecting that people will be objective, not taking anything personally or thinking that I'm somehow comparing myself to others or devaluing them. Also, since I'm quite fast at understanding others and adapting myself so I do expect the same from others and they are generally much slower to react, if at all. Perhaps it's true what they say in MBTI: when under stress ENFP become a negative manifestation of ISTJ. --Mikemex 15:28, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
I have conflicted with you a lot in the past, maybe if you took the time to write this down openly on the forum I'd have understood better why you always appear so hostile and pushy with your ideas even if they tend to lack a solid logical foundation (I think people can be pushy with ideas when they have a solid backing, otherwise they have got to be proposed as tentative). I thought you were ILE but now I can see the case for IEE. I honestly don't understand how anybody could type you as EIE. I don't even understand how people could think you're dumb since you're obviously extremely smart, just a bit deluded. FDG 09:45, 6 January 2008 (GMT)FDG
Just for the record, I don't think Mikemex can be EIE, nor is he "dumb" (duh). Has he ever engaged in     banter on the forum like most if not all of the     ego types have numerous times? I think he is focused on ideas above all, even if his presentation is sometimes abrasive. --Admin 11:13, 15 February 2008 (GMT)
My typing might be somewhat uninformed because I avoid 100% of everything that he writes like the plague. But from what I have seen, his understanding is highly systematic (and very poor), and he point-blank refuses to listen to anybody that tells him anything other than what he wants to hear. Essentially, I don't know that much about; maybe IEI is more likely or maybe LII -- but I don't think that IEE is terribly realistic at all. Regardless of his type, however, I highly doubt that I will ever be convinced of his sanity. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 13:07, 15 February 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Minde

  • Current consensus: Image:Introverted_ethics.gif Image:Extroverted_intuition.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): EII Minde 05:26, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
7

[edit] Discussion Area

EII. Diana 05:28, 5 January 2008 (GMT)

EII. Carla 11:59, 5 January 2008 (GMT)

EII Fi, not liking or even understanding Se much, Te dual-seeking -- and all the rest. Expat 12:04, 5 January 2008 (GMT)

My original vote was for SLE but then Minde threatened me with physical violence if I did, so I'll also throw in another vote for EII. Brute! Aut0 14:27, 5 January 2008 (GMT)

"Minde threatened me with physical violence" ^o^ Proof she is confident in Se! Seriously though, if she says she has no reason to doubt EII, then I trust her. -- Ezra 17:12, 5 January 2008 (GMT)

EII - Fi UDP 08:36, 6 January 2008 (GMT) Puts up with repetitive bad jokes like a saint.

Expat, do you have examples of me not liking or (especially) not understanding Se? I'm not arguing, just wondering. --Minde 21:19, 6 January 2008 (GMT)

[edit] misutii

  • Current consensus: Image:Introverted_intuition.gif Image:Extroverted_ethics.gif
  • Self typing/statement (if applicable): IEI Misutii 17:39, 11 February 2008 (GMT)
Please sign your name next to your self typing/statement with four tildes (~~~~) Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:22, 10 February 2008 (GMT)
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
1

[edit] Discussion Area

[edit] munenori2

  • Current consensus: Image:Introverted_ethics.gif Image:Extroverted_intuition.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): EII munenori2 00:40, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
2

[edit] Discussion Area

  • EII: granted I have not had that much experience with munenori, but our encounters seem to point towards EII. On the forum he seems similar to other EIIs. I cannot say conclusively his type, but, EII is my top bet at this time UDP 09:04, 6 January 2008 (GMT)

[edit] MysticSonic

  • Current consensus: Image:Introverted_logic.gif Image:Extroverted_intuition.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): LII MysticSonic 12:25, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
4

[edit] Discussion Area

  • He VIs ISTp over INTj, in my opinion, not that VI or my opinion on it overrides a functional analysis of someone's behavior. I don't really know him, nor do I find his posting style to indicate anything other than introversion and logic, so I can't say more. Since I can't split my vote I'll say INTj --Discojoe 23:34, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
  • LII has always been very apparent to me. He is, and describes himself as being, very non-confrontational. He only approaches a debate from the point of having a strictly logical basis for his claims. To me, he's got the classic spaced-out look of an LII and the laid back yet self-controlled nature to go with it. -- Gilly 16:47, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
removed for further contemplation. i think he is definitely a     type. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:14, 26 February 2008 (GMT)
  • I'm inclined to think LII after meeting him in Boston. --Admin 18:06, 6 February 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Niffweed17

ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
1 11

[edit] Discussion Area

I say ILI. He is inclined towards "Ni blather" (thanks, Rick); inclined to be "harsh" and makes no compromises of his opinion for making it "nice" or palatable by the masses, openly shows contempt and self-righteously defends his right to do so (   -vulnerable/   -mobilising); other stuff. --Tanehem 03:31, 2 January 2008 (GMT)

  • I would say LII. He has a very rigid structuralist attitude in how he thinks that is indicative of pronounced    . He also posts a lot of random completely off the wall non-sequiturs which is something more akin to Alpha, not Gamma. I would also say that just because somebody acts rude and cantankerous doesn't mean anything about     or    . Dynamicism 07:51, 2 January 2008 (GMT)Dynamicism
In what way do I have a "very rigid structuralist attitude in how I think?" give me examples. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:46, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
Acting "rude and cantankerous" is definitely related to    . The real question is whether someone is doing it on purpose, and from emotional reasons, in order to hurt and/or put down others, and/or for the sake of the "crowd" that may be watching - that is, in order to steer emotions - OR whether someone is doing it due to a lack of concern, or "blind spot", for someone else's emotions. His "random off the wall non-sequiturs" actually serve always the same purpose, that is, to show his contempt for, and the stupidity of, whatever discussion is ongoing. They are, in effect, slight variations of the same thing. It's simply the same as if he'd say "this is rubbish" every single time, but in a slightly more colorful way. That's all there is to it, and if anything shows a relatively low regard for     (a true Alpha NT would likely move on to other things soon). Expat 13:56, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
(I'm presuming that the above is a vote for ILI. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:25, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
You're presuming correctly. And I don't understand in which way you're supposed to have a "very rigid structuralist attitude in how you think", either. I would apply that to people like (whatever types they are) hitta, Phaedrus, perhaps tcaudilllg, labcoat and Smilingeyes. Those are people who create and/or use "rigid structures" and whose structures are given importance over factual evidence - "the beauty of the equation", as Paul Dirac put it. Expat 22:42, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I'm going for ILI too! if you only were to post less shit everybody would easily agree with it though Niff! I also don't think Smilingeyes "structure" is akin to Ti but better not go into that debate really. FDG 21:07, 3 January 2008 (GMT)FDG
But if i were to post less shit (if I interpret you correctly) I would be right by default and lack of coherent argument rather than being right because I know I'm right and have demonstrated why. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:49, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • He and I have a similar style of humor and wit, as well as a similar way of expressing disdain with things we don't like (random remarks and comments like "die", "I hate you" -- stuff like that). His physical appearance is unkempt and I think very typical of an Ni type who is always seeing things through the weird intuitive lens. --Discojoe 23:39, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
Exactly the same reasoning to prove the exact opposite of what you were saying six months ago, I might add. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:49, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
I'm allowed to change my mind. --Discojoe 15:38, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
yes, you are. and i commend you for improving your understanding of socionics sufficiently to do so (presuming that this is correct). but it's just interesting how the same information can lead to exactly the opposite conclusion. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:46, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
Please explicitly state your type vote. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:20, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
Okay. INTp --Discojoe 00:31, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • ILI. I think his     dominance was pretty obvious to everyone in NYC, especially when he was describing his worldview and trying to agree on a vision of the year 2050 with thehotelambush's ESE grandmother. --Admin 19:11, 4 January 2008 (GMT)

ILI-seems to want to be stubborn in the area of ethics, a characteristic of some ILI that I know. Probably from Fi HA The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimbean

  • ILI Appears to demonstrate Fe polr, especially before his return to the forum a few months ago after a hiatus. Seems much more gamma > alpha. The preceding unsigned comment was added by UDP - - I signed that comment, or at least intended to. UDP 18:20, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • INTp per Rick. About his worldview, the universe is supposed to be a sphere or something, correct? Thehotelambush 00:38, 11 February 2008 (GMT)
he certainly heard enough about it in boston; mysticsonic and i argued about topics related to the sort of metaphysical viewpoint behind that spherical image at length (both in and out of the main group). Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 17:22, 11 February 2008 (GMT)

ILI. Not much to say about it. His posts are Fe void and pure Fi. Fails to see the value of arguments brought about by Fe types. Ti types asking for more detailed explanations is something he doesn't particularly enjoy, but he can deal with it. --Mm 16:19, 11 February 2008 (GMT)

what do you mean about "not particularly enjoying" giving more detailed explanations? can you give an example of some discussion that you perceived me as not enjoying? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 17:26, 11 February 2008 (GMT)
Hmm, good question. It's just something I noticed and then realised I did that too with Fe/Fi. I can't really point to a specific thread, but I'll let you know when I come across one. An example I guess would be if I asked you to explain what exactly is wrong with hitta's system. Where are the inconsistencies? Where are the logical flaws in the way he derived his model? I'm sure you could do that perfectly, but not without a deep sigh. In my case, if Fe makes me aware of a certain meme, I wouldn't be exactly keen on pointing out all the Fi connections between people to explain where a meme is coming from and how it's propagating and mutating etc. --Mm 22:33, 11 February 2008 (GMT)
i understand that, but i don't really agree with the comparison. if somebody with a rational capacity for thought (perhaps an     creative type), came up with a Ti-based model/theory that I thought was wrong, it's very possible that i would be happy to explain to them exactly why it was wrong, so long as i had some idea that they might listen to me. in fact, i've noticed that i've been able to do that with a number of IEIs (examples including snegledmaca, loki, glamourama) -- but to varying degrees of success in eventually getting them to see the flaws in their overall interpretations of socionics. (some of those people also might be mistyped). regardless, the main point that i'm not willing to discuss hitta's model is that he listens to nothing i say. so i could care less how stupid he is. furthermore there exists the caveat that there's no logic whatsoever to hitta's model; it's based on an entirely systematic approach which is faulty in every possible respect with regards to anything in reality. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:52, 11 February 2008 (GMT)
Ok, but that's not exactly what I'm after. I would be happy to explain Fi issues on their own as well, but what I'm not inclined to do, is explain the reasons for Fe assessments in Fi terms. If somebody would ask me to do that, my first reaction would be something along the lines of: "oh boy". This is what was probably needed to fully explain Kristiina's pov in the "on beta Fe" thread, but what nobody was willing to do. I've been trying to find a Te/Ti example in your posts that shows the same mechanism, but I'm finding it pretty hard to recognise Te, which I'm sure must be right there in plain view... --Mm 00:48, 13 February 2008 (GMT)
Another thing I noticed now, is that you have an entirely different approach to spreading an idea. You seem to put a lot of emphasis on whether people are listening to you or not. So, if you have a certain idea or conclusion you want to share, you focus your attention on the person you want to explain it to (Fi), and then let Te guide the process of convincing him, coming up with examples perhaps, or other techniques (which?), and measuring how successful they are for this person (Fi again). Is that correct? Because a Ti/Fe type would express an idea in a Ti sense, as a structure, and then use Fe techniques to guide how the idea is received, by making it more appealing or something (word choice and word connotation become important), or by showing lots of enthusiasm to draw more attention and such. A perfect example is the thread titled "threesome experiences". I think this difference could explain why you and Hitta clash so hard. You've come to certain conclusions about his theory. And then you're focusing your attention on him and attempt to convince him of those conclusions. Hitta sees that as quite confronting and insulting. He doesn't want you to focus on him, he wants you to focus on his theory, wants you and everybody else to "give his theory a fair chance instead of coming at him with (in his eyes) your mind all made up". He wants critique in Ti style, so that he then can make up his mind about it in his own way, free of any Te "thought control" from someone else (Te PoLR). An example of this is how Logos approaches Hitta's INTj description. He simply points out "this is right, this is wrong". I think you would find this approach slow and boring, which is what I'm trying to get at in my previous comment. So, Hitta ends up not wanting to listen to you, which you in turn take as a Fe PoLR hit, because it means you're not appealing enough for some reason, and that's an insult to your intelligence. And that closes the endless cycle of the two of you insulting each other. What do you think? --Mm 00:48, 13 February 2008 (GMT)
i think your example regarding hitta misses the mark completely. the Fi comparison might be legitimate in the idea that i think it's important to look at the information i give people on an individual basis, and that i have different perceptions of different people by which i might be more willing to share some information with certain people whose intelligence and/or personal qualities i have some respect for. that i think is valid.
this suggestion that i'm focusing on hitta himself, and completely ignoring the theory, however, is way off base, and frankly i really don't see what reference solely to the theory would accomplish in terms of a Ti context. basically hitta's theory makes a number of fundamental structural     assumptions regarding the nature of socionics (mostly related to +/-, etc.). i think those assumptions are bullshit and unfounded -- this is a rather fundamental point. before they can be said to have some merit, he has to make some kind of evidentiary case that his particular set of assumptions has some value in the real world. he has repeatedly proven incapable of doing this.
this is about the extent of what i can comment of hitta's theory. i am willing to discuss what i would see as the particulars of the theory; that is, why his assumptions are wrong (although in hitta's case this is limited on a factual basis to "your assumptions are unfounded" but on a practical basis can be extended to "your constant inability to understand this further demonstrates the illegitimacy of your assumptions and your own personal stupidity." what i'm NOT willing to discuss is what happens when you take hitta's ridiculous set of     mental masturbation-esque assumptions and play with them, which represents the entirety of his understanding of the theory. therefore discussion is pretty impossible; i brand him as an idiot and presumably he does the same with me, and we move on. it's important to understand that it's true that i'm not willing to waste time trying to talk to him, but also that my reasons for doing so are fundamentally based in a grounded and tangible interpretation of the theory, which in his case just happens to stop at the given logical conditions. no doubt hitta would be more receptive to a more structurally oriented critique of his ideas a la tcaudilllg.
also you mentioned hitta's lack of interest in my critique as an Fe polr hit. nothing could be further from the truth. while its very true that people, with whom rational discourse is impossible, by nature distress me, as a    -valuing type, to a great degree, your comparison to     is 100% misguided, and lack of interest in my ideas is not something that i would remotely construe as a personal insult, or any other kind of message at all (probably the suggestion shows that you aren't really aware of what super-ego     entails). in hitta's case, i have long ago deemed him a lost cause and decided to ignore him completely, with few (if any) regrets. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:48, 13 February 2008 (GMT)
I don't know how you are taking our discussion, but personally I'm taking each of your comments as a PoLR hit, especially this last one. There's an awkward feeling of shame in my chest each time I read it, so I decided to let it rest for a day. I'm not even sure if the feeling is valid, because we do seem to agree on a lot. It could be just your writing style. Just FYI btw. I can handle it, don't worry. I've also read the description of the kindred relation again and it seems to fit quite well, from my pov anyway. I can understand why it is what it is. That said, I have a few remarks.
I didn't suggest you're not paying any attention to hitta's theory, but that to him it appears that way. You know how Fe is often accused of emotional manipulation? Well, I think in the same sense, you could accuse Te of thought manipulation. You're coming with your Te at him (Fi) and he simply does not want you or anyone else to approach him that way, which definitely points to Te PoLR for his case. Also, regarding his theory I can be very short, I don't consider it worthwhile for the same reasons you mentioned. But again, the suggestions you are making there about what hitta should do ("before they can be said to have some merit...") is a Te approach right? And it's different from Logos's approach. I agree with your conclusions regarding his theory. Actually, if I remember correctly, I said something along those lines myself a few months ago in one of his threads.
About your Fe PoLR, it's true I don't understand super-ego Fe yet. I'm trying to get there. It's just that if I'm not mistaken, you and Expat are the only super-ego Fe types with a decent (and sane) understanding of socionics. Also, my interest is purely formal. I have no interest whatsoever in changing your attitude towards Fe or certain Fe types. I'm only interested in your opinion about it.
The reason I ended up with you and hitta is because I find it an intriguing interaction that socionics can (or should be able to) explain. Personally I don't see hitta as stupid or incapable, only as mistaken, while you apparently do. And I find that remarkable, because it looks like a severe judgement from your HA Fi, that I think is wrong. Literally wrong, not morally. Anyone with an interest in investigating socionics almost certainly has an intelligence higher than the average bloke. The only reason I can think of that made you come up with it is PoLR trouble. If it's not because he didn't listen to you, perhaps there's some other reason? Maybe he lashed you with his Fe? Wanted to change your behaviour? Hmm, now I seem to remember reading somewhere he misbehaved on this wiki too. That could have blown things up a bit, in which case perhaps I should let it rest. I'll leave that up to you. --Mm 22:46, 14 February 2008 (GMT)
  • ILI I enjoy discussing things with him and reading his opinions on different topics, whether or not I agree. I think it's the shared valued    . Mentioning anything else is probably redundant seeing as how much is already mentioned lol Misutii 00:10, 14 February 2008 (GMT)
  • After meeting with him, I believe he was an obvious ILI. On the second day of the Conference in New York, we had an EIE, an ESE and two IEI's; the irritation showed up on his facial expressions. Jimbean
Note to self: Jimbean already voted above. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:29, 26 February 2008 (GMT)

[edit] See Also

[5]

[edit] Phaedrus

  • Current consensus: Image:Introverted_intuition.gif Image:Extroverted_ethics.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable):
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
3 4 1

[edit] Discussion Area

This is going to be at least as controversial as ashton. My vote for now goes to IEI, but i am not strongly convinced of that. i see and always have seen from him a very logical way of going about things, and its much easier for me to see the Fe in a person like hitta than in phaedrus (perhaps because hitta has posted videos which clearly show off his Ni + Ti/Fe and phaedrus has not). in the recent discussions in which expat and myself were attacked (in my view, for no apparent reason) for our views on    , phaedrus is always a central point of debate referred to by some     types as not demonstrating any kind of observable    . yet that's about as far as it ever got. so, use this space to discuss phaedrus more specifically. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 18:14, 29 January 2008 (GMT)

  • I will register my vote for IEI, but a lot of the disagreement has to do with what precisely     is. My view of     as information element - something that necessarily goes together with     - does not rule out someone appearing to be "unemotional" on the outside (as in not using emoticons every second sentence etc), I think it's closer to what snegledmaca recently described, especially as a creative function. As in many other typings, the bigger issue is not whether a particular individual is of a particular type, but what makes the functions and therefore the types. It is obvious that anyone who thinks that a     ego type necessarily has to be "emotionally expressive" in the way, say, that Kristiina or Bionicgoat or dee are, will not see Phaedrus as IEI (actually if you look closer even in that definition Phaedrus has moments, but never mind).Expat 18:26, 29 January 2008 (GMT)
  • IEI: Purposeful intent of using     to dig under the skin of others in arguments and to make his weak     arguments appear stronger than they actually are. In perhaps what may appear to be a paradoxical twist, he seems to use     as a means to look like he is unemotional, calm, and collected. Weak     in circular reasoning and an inability to properly answer the question of "why" when asked for further proof or reasoning, but still proclaims a concern for "proper modes of thinking." Weak     in his proclamation of things as facts on no basis but his word, his frequent debate in semantics as a means to preserve the appearance of his correctness, as well as his selective use of sources (fairly frequently used out of context) to preserve his world view.    -PoLR in that he does not yield his argument in the face of overwhelming counter evidence. And perhaps one of the most interesting items is that he often identifies with IEI's in certain threads (Loki and snegledmaca come to mind), but instead of taking the step of thinking himself as an IEI, he calls to question if they are not somehow ILI's instead. He is also unable to adequately describe why as an ILI he values     and when asked about why he does, he either sidesteps the issue entirely or merely refers you to one of his sources as to why or cuts-and-pastes from these sources as his answer. I do not think that Phaedrus is a typical IEI, but an unhealthy one who is attempting to maintain an erroneous view regarding his self-described ILI nature out of a fear of somehow being thought unintelligent and illogical in his misapprehensions regarding the nature of     and an ethical type. Logos 01:11, 12 February 2008 (GMT)
I'm still baffled at how you managed to make such a good case in such a tight paragraph. Expat 09:54, 11 February 2008 (GMT)
I can see where you're coming from and have kept up with this issue. I've noticed that the idea that a 'special' type of NiTi IEI is being mentioned more often. However, I see no merit to this idea. Why an unhealthy IEI and not an unhealthy ILI? What is an unhealthy ILI? Do we have any on the forum? I quite frankly don't believe the mythical Ti IEI exists. Hitta is LII, Phaedrus is likely ILI, I posted a large argument at the bottom of the discussion. IEIs that display stronger Ti than other IEIs are not a "special breed", they've likely just been educated to formulate logical arguments. For example, I'd say I'm more confident debating issues than most IEIs on the forum, but the main reason for this is that I've been formally trained to do so. (university degree in history). Misutii 23:23, 13 February 2008 (GMT)
assuming that phaedrus is engaging in an "unhealthy" usage of    , he doesn't resemble an "unhealthy ILI" at all. an unhealthy ILI is not at all a precluded possibility, but generally it would make sense that the unhealthiness of such an ILI would stem with regards to not being able to take care of        or     issues, and not have anything to do with    . Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:05, 14 February 2008 (GMT)

IEI. Is T when comparing things and making connections, F when interpreting group dynamics, hence Ti/Fe. The Ti is apparent when he's linking different type theories. Fe is visible when he attributes often malicious intent to the forum as a whole, some defined group of people, or "people in general". This is in sharp contrast with Niffweed who's disappointment or discontent is always directed at a single person (Fi). --Mm 15:59, 11 February 2008 (GMT)

I don't think this holds any weight. Phaedrus' insults are directed at individuals, or a group of individuals, these individuals have clearly banded together multiple times against him, and in support of each other, on the forum. If a group of individuals repeatedly did the same to Niffweed he'd likely react similarly. It doesn't seem feasible that Phaedrus should have to direct separate insults to separate individuals in order to show he values    . Phaedrus insults those that he's insulted by. If an individual, in the supposed "group" that Phaedrus has supposedly defined, started agreeing with Phaedrus instead of insulting him, then that individual would no longer be insulted. Misutii 18:12, 13 February 2008 (GMT)
An example of a statement of his that I think shows an Fe perspective rather than Te is this: "It is an example of this forum going astray, inventing its own version of Socionics, and you will probably not find a serious socionist outside of this forum that is willing to support it." He seems concerned about ideas floating around the forum that could badly influence other members. It's not unlike Kristiina's concerns in the "on beta Fe" thread. --Mm 13:41, 15 February 2008 (GMT)
  • Although I respect the vast majority of Expat's opinions regarding socionics, I find it unfortunate that he has been able to so thoroughly convince the forum of such a twisted view of     ego types. As for Phaedrus specifically: I agree that     is not just about being "emotional", but in Phaedrus's case this is not to the point. Phaedrus's posts almost invariably take the form "No, that is incorrect." or "Your statement violates universal law X" or something to that effect. Combining this with his complete and persistent ineptitude when it comes to understanding the effect his arrogant tone has on how he is perceived, I find it impossible to believe that he has weak logic and strong ethics. It's as if I was to continually make Bionicgoat-like comments to get people to lighten up. The fact that his arguments don't make sense is irrelevant to whether the information element is strong or weak. The analogy would be an ethical type who makes lots of jokes that never pan out. Given that Phaedrus regularly and actively initiates hostile arguments of a logical nature, and displays nothing resembling awareness of     or     in the slightest, my vote goes to ISTj. I urge everyone to consider Phaedrus's type in light of what it means in general for an element to be strong, and to decide for themselves whether he can be consistently typed as INFp. Thehotelambush 02:03, 12 February 2008 (GMT)
Then why     >     and     >    ? Logos 06:00, 12 February 2008 (GMT)
 ? Ti preference is pretty undisputed, I think, and I see Phaedrus's closed-mindedness as a result of superego Ne. Thehotelambush 06:07, 12 February 2008 (GMT)
First, I don't think your analogy of "you as Bionicgoat" is a very good one; that would be your suggestive function, whereas     for IEIs is the mobilizing function or HA. That is not a quibble, as I find it much more likely that someone would over-estimate the importance of their HA than their ds. Second, as Logos pointed out, I do think Phaedrus has awareness of    , even if often incorrect, usually seen in his more paranoid musings like "everybody gangs up on the lone wolf" (which is a very IEI remark imo) or his going into stuff like "I am getting very irritated" or "look at your emotional state" etc etc. Third, rather than say that I have "thoroughly convinced others" of something, perhaps you might give them some credit and ask how they reached that conclusion and what they are seeing.Fourth, for someone with     in ego, he is remarkably dependent on the "support" of people whom he sees as reassuring him that he's right, like his collection of philosophers whom he name-drops in order to support whatever point he's making, or people like Smilingeyes. That is not using     as in quoting factual evidence, or using examples to illustrate something you yourself understand. He clearly, imo, uses that - sometimes explicitly - in a "so-and-so says that, are you going to say that so-and-so is wrong?" way. That is     in the super-id in my opinion. Expat 06:38, 12 February 2008 (GMT)
Also, something we started to discuss in Duesseldorf. People can, and do, over-focus on their super-id functions; but they tend to do it badly, overdoing it, and in that process become generally disliked, or or seen as annoying, people, except - or less so - by identicals and duals (or even all types of the same quadra, to different extents). Or not even those if the person is really over-the-top. I think Phaedrus qualifies. It seems self-serving but it isn't. I think it's necessary to look at everything that seems to be going on, like, why very few people seem to even want to see him in the same quadra as themselves. Expat 08:57, 12 February 2008 (GMT)
I agree with thehotelambush that the IEI typing of Phaedrus is a stretch. Take Dee, for instance. I believe he is SEI, and he is obviously     valuing, yet not an     type (I think most will agree here). Yet his     and     are quite visible, especially where he has talked about himself or is not ranting on some perceived evil    . I haven't seen any     in Phaedrus's more personable moments or in self-descriptions. Correct me if I am wrong. Also, for the record, I am not sure of his type, but I would consider LSI, LII, and ILI. --Admin 13:42, 12 February 2008 (GMT)
(added a month later) I'm probably not going to cast a vote till I see pictures or videos of Phaedrus (highly unlikely) or meet him in person, but I would vote against IEI and any ethical type for certain. I challenge anyone from the pro-IEI crowd to find a record of Phaedrus speaking from an ethical function. --Admin 22:33, 10 March 2008 (GMT)
Oh, I do agree that it's a stretch, but I do see (as Logos mentioned) a more longer-time kind of     than dee's short-term volatility. Another problem is that I see even more difficulties with LSI as a type. I'm not saying that IEI is an obvious typing, but at least it has the merit (or demerit?) of explaining why Phaedrus identifies so strongly with INTP descriptions; putting in other words: why would a LSI be so "keen" on the INTP type? Knowing those descriptions, I think IEI is the least bad explanation for the available evidence, including why he's so keen on ABCD=ABCd. Because the only way he can truly "be" ILI is "through" INTP, which I think an intellectually-minded IEI could easily identify with, at least far more easily than a LSI. Expat 13:51, 12 February 2008 (GMT)
ok, I don't think it makes any sense to use as typing evidence the self-typing of someone who you think has a deeply flawed understanding of socionics in the first place. People can falsely identify with types for any number of reasons, but misconceptions of intuitive logicals as being "smarter" (which he mentions frequently) are more than enough to explain Phaedrus's choice of INTp (or INTP or whatever). Also, I think that while the few Fe-related remarks Phaedrus makes are important, they are hardly indicative of his overall behavior patterns, which consistently say    . You are making this far more complicated than it really is. Thehotelambush 15:06, 12 February 2008 (GMT)

Taking into consideration the self-typing of someone with a deeply flawed understanding of Socionics makes sense when one delves into why and how they approached that conclusion and why they persist and continue to maintain it. That is where the self-typing comes into play. They may have a misunderstanding of Socionics in terms of functions or types, but there is some quality or essence which they are able to identify within these parameters. For Phaedrus, as Expat has said prior, this is manifest in his attempts to reinforce his ILI self-typing through the MBTI INTP and other systems. And while you may say that it is because the NT is perceived as being smarter (which is true enough), it does not say why a Gamma NT over an Alpha NT or essentially why     >    . And again, part of the issue is that not only is he trying to maintain his ILI typing, but he is also personally identifying with IEI individuals and interpreting their creative-    as creative-    and questioning their IEI-ness and not his ILI-ness. But what overall behavior patterns do you see point to a     dominance over     valuing? Logos 21:41, 12 February 2008 (GMT)

"there is some quality or essence which they are able to identify within these parameters" You will have to be more specific. All I see is that Phaedrus believes "I am smart. All smart people with my beliefs are INTp. Therefore I am INTp.", which gives no insight into his type whatsoever. As for why Gamma instead of Alpha, have you not seen Phaedrus's interpretation of the Objectivist/Subjectivist dichotomy? But Phaedrus's rationalizations are besides the point, and it similarly does not matter who Phaedrus identifies with; he doesn't even know what kinds of traits to look for. Finally, there is no such thing as "Ti dominance over Ti valuing". I have already stated quite explicitly why I believe Phaedrus has strong logic, according to the criteria normally used for typing. The fact that you have to resort to such indirect arguments that don't address his actual functional use should at least be a warning sign that the typing is misguided. Thehotelambush 22:46, 12 February 2008 (GMT)
Phaedrus's rationalizations are the point, because they reveal his thinking process. And when I say "Ti dominance over Ti-valuing," I mean Ti in the ego versus having Ti in the Super-Id. My argument for IEI is no more indirect than yours in this case as I have explicitly made mention of his functional use, but I sought to make it more intensive and cover most of the basics of the case for IEI. So I do not know why you are accusing me of indirect arguments. And this typing was reached independently by Expat, Tanahem, and myself, so this is hardly some out of the blue typing here. Logos 22:59, 12 February 2008 (GMT)
Personally, if he has strong Ti, I find it bizarre that he doesn't seem very interested in the fundamental building blocks of socionics, and instead stays on a more superficial level analysing and pointing to type descriptions. Also, regarding his PoLR, he puts a lot of emphasis on independent thought. He frequently says something along the lines of: "There's nothing in socionics that indicates I'm anything but ILI. If you would read this and this and that you will come to the same conclusions." That's Te, but it's not an engaging Te; it's PoLR Te imo. The stubbornness you perceived can also be attributed to PoLR Te. It's just that he perceives some people on the forum as out to change his mind, and he tries to get away from that, seeking independence. The stubbornness is more of panicking reaction (dynamic), than a grumpy persistent (static) stubbornness I'd expect from Ne. Does Ne PoLR really mean you're stubborn, btw? --Mm 01:51, 13 February 2008 (GMT)
Logos, the main argument you have given for weak logic is that Phaedrus's logical arguments are bad, which is not sufficient, as I have shown. As for strong ethics all you have said is that he uses "    to dig under the skin of others in arguments". I don't know exactly what you mean by this, but I think it could be attributed mostly to    , and his unwillingness to consider new evidence to     PoLR instead of     PoLR. Thehotelambush 21:35, 13 February 2008 (GMT)
The problem is that you have not shown much at all in ways of analysis to indicate that I should change my assessment from IEI. Logos 01:11, 14 February 2008 (GMT)
  • ILI I disagree with many points made… Te-types on the forum seem to display a general misinterpretation of the manifestation of     (in the ego block). They refer to logical definitions and phrases as a way of explaining it (i.e.group dynamics) but don't seem to grasp that    , as an ethical function, is going to be difficult for them to evaluate. Indeed Te-types, having     in their super-ego block, are the types most likely to misinterpret    . Notice that no ethical types (to my knowledge) have stated a strong argument for Phaedrus being INFp. Indeed it’s the ethical types that seem to disagree.

a) The fact that Phaedrus relates to INFps on the forum does not make him INFp. INTp-INFp relation is comparative, in these relations both parties tend to understand each other but cannot help each other. Jonathan, an INTp forum member, was repeatable able to see where I was coming from in my posts on this issue. He is my comparative, the fact that we can agree with each other does not make us identicals. Likewise with Phaedrus. If relations are going to be used to determine his type then it is best that another be used i.e. his relations with ESFp vs. ESTp (possible duals) and ENFp vs. ENTp (possible illusionaries) forum members. b) Misusing ‘facts’ does not imply     PoLR. Using     is related to expressing facts but how the facts are expressed isn’t static. There are facts as in researched and generally agreed upon knowledge, there are second-hand facts i.e. heard from other people etc. Having     in your ego block does not mean that you are dedicated to expressing carefully researched facts honestly, in fact Te-types are just as prone to gossiping, lying and misusing facts in service of their interests. On the “Michael Moore” page here I disagree with Expat on a similar issue, whether Michael Moore is INFp or INTp, see that for more on this. c) Phaedrus as an “abnormal” or “unhealthy” INFp isn’t credible and labelling him such would be like putting a band-aid on an infected wound. First one must demonstrate knowledge of behavioural patterns of ‘unhealthy INFps’, then compare Phaedrus’ behaviour with this. In regards to myself, and information from other INFps on the forum, unhealthy behaviour could be exemplified by histrionics and/or social isolation. As an ethical type I’ll say that Phaedrus’ moods seem in line with logical types (usually static but with occasional outbursts). His outbursts are not controlled (emotional outbursts by INFps usually serve a purpose other than just pissing people off). Quite frankly more discretion ought to be used before publicly labelling another person as “broken.” d) Finally, in regards to pissing people off, which it seems he has, I side with those that point to Fe-PoLR. Phaedrus isn’t purposefully pissing people off (as an Fe-ego-type is capable of doing) but seems unaware (or just doesn’t care) of the effect of his words. Niffweed, an INTp, also displays this. INFps tend to place value on being generally liked, even if they don’t like the people they’re around. Fe-types feel responsible for the mood of those around them, Te-types don’t, hence the continual slandering of Phaedrus and vice-versa. -Conclusion: Most likely type is INTp. Confident he’s a logical and irrational type. INFp remains theoretically possible but thus far has violently revolted against all attempts of practical application. Misutii 17:52, 13 February 2008 (GMT)

a) it is not just that Phaedrus identified with the IEI but that he interpreted their creative-    as creative-    and believes that his creative function operates in the same way and it is not a matter of Phaedrus "seeing where [you were] coming from" in your posts. b) I understand and I agree, but it is more the matter of how Phaedrus reacts in relation to    . c) Why should you care? d) He has no indicated need or understanding of a    -HA and he does seem to be quite aware as to how his statements come across, so I do not think that he has a    -PoLR. Logos 01:11, 14 February 2008 (GMT)
a)where can I see this? him interpreting creative     as creative    ? b)in what sense? you mean he's supposed to get along with his identical better than with his comparitive? are you sure? And his dual? I always see Ezra attacking what he says, surely ESTp isn't it. c)Because I don't think Phaedrus, as an "Unhealthy IEI", works and I don't think any IEI that's been "unhealthy" would relate, which would mean Phaedrus has to be a "special" type of "unhealthy" IEI, great, while we're at it let's make more special unique unhealthy types, how many do you think there are? at least two per type right? surely, add in subtypes 16x2+16x2=64 wow 64 socionic types now everything makes sense! (point being we shouldn't start making "special" rules, don't you think that if this special type of IEI exists that it would already be noted by a Russian socionist? Misutii 01:41, 14 February 2008 (GMT)
let us be very clear about one thing: the fact that somebody like ezra hates phaedrus means nothing at all. in truth, everybody seems to hate phaedrus. i would explain this by again referring to the Ti-sort of variant of IEI. the internet is a wonderful place for such a person to flower, since he can basically spread his ideas with impunity, and there will always be somebody willing to listen. i think IRL such a persona is not maintainable, and i think that all of these people who look like they are utterly braindead (dio, machintruc, tcaud, hitta, phaedrus) have a very different relationship towards the internet, where they can     mentally masturbate as much as desired, than they do towards real life. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:47, 14 February 2008 (GMT)
guys have you checked how big Phaedrus' section has grown? We've turned him into a celebrity and pretty much made him a fan site, couple all this with all the threads in the forum and you could bind a Phaedrus bible... what if this was his plan all along? endless publicity... and we're no more than the paparazzi behind britney spears... I'm scared... Misutii 03:10, 14 February 2008 (GMT)

LSI. Sorry, Phaedrus, I know I'll be on your bozo list if I'm not already, but that's what I think. I'm basing this on my arguments with him on the16types, which were clearly centered around his     and my use of    , and on my arguments with a few other forum members (Rocky, Smilingeyes, and possibly Tcaudilllg) that had absolutely the same structure. I might have thought this was just a separate case, but subsequent encounters have shown that Phaedrus' point of view and thinking style have stayed the same. The     thinking style is basically self-evident: working from a set of views that must be kept consistent (how about this statement: "The only thing(s) that irritate me is that I can't fit all the pieces together in a perfect order."), perceiving requests to "provide examples" as being "grunt work" that people should do for themselves (devalued    ), and demonstrating a complete lack of playfulness as far as I can tell. As for     versus    , I recall that he is prone to talk down to people and give them orders when they demonstrate a lack of logic, and I associate this behavior with LSIs rather than LIIs. He is also remarkably tenacious and resistant to antagonism and just keeps doggedly pressing forward no matter how much he is disliked. I think this reaction style would be very unnatural for an LII. This is all systematic behavior on his part — enough so that I feel fairly confident of this typing. Phaedrus actually tries quite a bit to be helpful, though it often comes across as being overbearing. He seems to like to help people sort out their muddled perceptions, especially of their own types or types of others they know. Here he feels he can help bring clarity to the situation and help the person rule out all illogical routes of thought. I think this is     assistance. Another reason to rule out ethical types are statements such as the following: "I only state the facts as I see them, and I have little control over how you and others interpret my words." This is a typical logical sentiment, especially of those with leading    , since those with     are interested in learning how to say things that will not grate on people the wrong way, whereas those with     would prefer not to have to think about that at all. --Admin 18:15, 15 March 2008 (GMT)

LSI. Other possible typings that are less likely imo include IEI, EIE, and (to a lesser extent) LII. --Joy 14:55, 6 August 2008 (BST)

[edit] Reyn_til_runa

  • Current consensus: Image:Introverted_intuition.gif Image:Extroverted_logic.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable):
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
4

[edit] Discussion Area

ILI per Boston. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:48, 5 February 2008 (GMT)

ILI. Focus on     is very obvious, perhaps more so than anyone else on the forum. Posts indicate low focus on     and stronger on    . Expat 13:11, 6 February 2008 (GMT)

ILI. --Admin 18:11, 6 February 2008 (GMT)

INTp, no contest. Thehotelambush 22:20, 9 February 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Slacker Mom

  • Current consensus: Image:Extroverted_intuition.gif Image:Introverted_ethics.gif
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): IEE --Slacker Mom 14:12, 3 January 2008 (GMT) Slacker Mom
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
3

[edit] Discussion Area

The only thing I'd have a problem with as Slacker Mom as an IEE is that, despite the initial feelings between us, we get on well. --Ezra 14:30, 3 January 2008 (GMT)

What happened to Betas getting along with everybody, huh? --Tanehem the Necromancer 14:31, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
Don't understand. We do get on well. --Ezra 14:32, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
If Betas "get along with everyone", it should be a problem for Slacker Mom to b IEE because you getting along with someone is totally irrelevant. --Tanehem the Necromancer 14:35, 3 January 2008 (GMT)

I vote for IEE. I think her type is one of the best documented, since even as she wasn't yet typing other people herself, but writing descriptions of them and their interactions, everything just fitted together perfectly - with her husband, her parents, of them with her husbands, her siblings, etc. It all fits together just perfectly. Expat 06:18, 4 January 2008 (GMT)

Just for the record, I only have one husband. LOL --Slacker Mom 16:24, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
So we should use Slacker Mom as a benchmark for typing others, yes? And perhaps Herzy as well. -- Ezra 18:19, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Voted IEE. Seems obviously     valuing. The     is there and she's Extroverted. Seems to possess clear duality relationship with her SLI husband. Very nice and I find her a benevolent presence. Not sure what else to say, it's all too self-evident for me to say much really. She just screams IEE. Dynamicism 00:24, 8 January 2008 (GMT)

[edit] SongofSappho

  • Current consensus: [unknown or nonexisant]
  • Self-reported typing: XEE-Fi ~~Songofsappho

[edit] Discussion Area

[edit] Sunshine Lively

  • Current consensus: none
  • 'Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): ''''ILE or SLE Blaze 20:54, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
Please sign your name next to self-typing for verification. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:22, 4 January 2008
...by typing four tildes (~~~~) Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:28, 4 January 2008 (GMT)

(GMT)

ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
1

[edit] Discussion Area

Not SLE. ILE makes sense thus far. -- Ezra 18:12, 7 January 2008 (GMT)

i'm not sure that can be said unequivocally. on what basis? Blaze 20:55, 7 January 2008 (GMT)

Well, what are the arguments for and against SLE? And what are the arguments for and against ILE? --Ezra 01:15, 10 January 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Tanehem (Salawa)

  • Current consensus: none
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): LIE. Should I be writing anything else here? --Tanehem 03:53, 2 January 2008 (GMT)

If you like. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:05, 2 January 2008 (GMT)

  • Maybe the    -leading is not so obvious, mainly because I don't say a lot these days, and I am generally in Expat's shadow anyway. I think a general Te>Fe/Te>Ti impression can be gleaned, but I will address that in other points.
  • Anyone who has heard me talk about relationships would probably recognise that I am, undoubtably, a Victim. This is probably the most obvious indication of my     on the internet. Some other people suggest some other types but I relate to this so totally, anything other than an    -type really seems ridiculous from my perspective.
  • I suck at    , very clearly. I even try, how depressing. As much as I try to sort of "conform", I tend to obnoxiously correct others (   ) and insert my -- usually kind of nasty -- opinions on principle. I'm not so popular. I also tend to get comments along the lines of, "why aren't you smiling?", "she's so awkward", "stop being antisocial". These comments often seem nonsensical to me.
  • The idea that I'm any good at     is kind of ridiculous if one has read anything that I've written. I'm not sure what I can say here that would be anything new, except perhaps that being expected to act in a Caregiver kind of role is extremely irritating.
  • I like people with a vindictive streak. If someone is openly vindictive, I feel more secure around them for a few reasons: it shows that they are very clear on how they feel about things, that they are not likely to betray their own moral code, and if you're still on their good side it reflects positively on you.    +   
  • I think I very obviously don't value    . I make no attempt to structure anything I say, except superficially in the form of alphabetizing lists and whatnot. The LIE Domain is a good example of how I just can't be bothered.

Either ILI or LIE. --Isha 06:05, 14 February 2008 (GMT)

ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
2 2 4

[edit] Discussion Area

She's clearly Gamma, and of those, only ILI and LIE make sense. Temperament is more EJ than IP. Expat 00:19, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
I think the     and     are also telling, not that I have much of either anyway. --Tanehem the Necromancer 14:38, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Maybe a bit shy for a extrovert, but she looks ENTj and doesn't act not like one. All I really see or hear of her is through Joy, so I can only give a distanced impression. --Discojoe 23:42, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Strikes me as introverted in the way she discusses online/presents herselfs/domain of interests/energy levels/etc. FDG 11:04, 4 January 2008 (GMT)FDG
Can you explain the "discusses online", "presents beliefs" and "domain of interest" parts? --Tanehem the Necromancer 07:15, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
she also strikes me as an introvert, generally. i still think i'd favor ILI over LIE for the introversion i think i see as well. but she does have a bit of an NTj-ish seeming habit of pulling a bullet-point analysis to everything. i'm curious as to what function you think you'd be supervising me with, heh. Implied 08:41, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
I don't think we interact enough for any particular intertype relation to be apparent, so *shrug*. --Tanehem the Necromancer 08:50, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
Yes, I can explain for sure. When you discuss the energy level you present is much lower (imo) than say, Expat's or Joy's or Mine or Blaze's - taking as example those whose extraversion is impossible to doubt. Your domains of interest seem to be more narrow and deep rather than broad and "shallower" which is generally associated with introversion. Again, this is only what I understand from your online presentation so it could actually be very different. Lastly, you don't seem to have a strong need to expend energy to feel good - you don't seem to be very restless but rather pretty calm and able to do your job without the need to exercise/burn a lot of energy. FDG 09:53, 5 January 2008 (GMT)FDG
Can you please give more examples? (Not for the energy levels, the other parts). The interests part in particular is a bit confusing -- I don't think I've stuck at anything for long enough to have a notably deep understanding. --Tanehem the Necromancer 10:03, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
I don't think people entirely understand the concept of Introversion and Extroversion in socionics. -- Ezra 18:20, 5 January 2008 (GMT)

LIE - my best bet so far. She appears totally jittery and lacking Si; she seems to dislike Si; she enjoys Se; seems fairly gamma. She could possibly be some sort of ILI I suppose, but I am not sure. She seems like she needs some Se in her life big time. Needs a certain amount of forcefulness to calm her down. UDP 09:00, 6 January 2008 (GMT)

  • LIE. --Joy 23:32, 7 January 2008 (GMT)
  • IEI. Over a longitindual assessment of her person, taking into account her past and present behavior patterns, I see nothing strongly indicative of LIE with her and never have. I don't see any Extraversion with her, and too much about her contradicts with being an EJ. She seems too timid and disinterested in discussing anything she disagrees with, to the point of avoidance. Call it what you will, but I think something like that is too incongruent with the mentality of an LIE and most any EJ in general. Even though I don't like typing by traits like this, this contradiction seems too glaring to ignore in a case for her being LIE. In my view, she looks and act more clearly IP. And her style of thinking is not at all Te-oriented, but more of the systematic structuralist style of Ti, and carried out in a mannerism much like you'd expect from a person emphasizing their HA. She has more in common in that way with the other IEIs on the board who habitually emphasize their Ti, like snegledmaca and Kioshi. And her firmly avowed Victim attitudes removes ISFp as a possibility in my mind. Her seemingly ostensible lack of Fe, might in part be explained by the fact that she has mentioned something before about being in the Asperger Spectrum. Though I think she displays more Fe and is quite receptive to it more than she and others give her credit for. Not to mention the fact that not all the IEIs on the boards display tremendous amounts of Fe. Anyway, I can probably think of more but this is what comes off the top of my head at the moment. I might add more later. Dynamicism 11:53, 29 January 2008 (GMT)
Keep 'em coming. Feel free to also respond to the points raised. --Isha 12:51, 29 January 2008 (GMT)
k, I have to sleep first. I'll add more later today after I nourish my brain with some REM cycles. For now, I'll say that I do think the points on Introversion raised by FDG, implied are relevant to you and should be considered against you being Extraverted. Dynamicism 13:33, 29 January 2008 (GMT)
Implied didn't raise any points on introversion, she only stated that she sees it (much like you, which is pretty useless as it stands). --Isha 13:35, 29 January 2008 (GMT)
Lol, I see you've become well-versed in parroting Expat's language patterns. Bravo on that I suppose. And thanks for nitpicking, I just thought it was interesting implied pointed out that possibility of you being introverted was all.
Do you want me to respond here or on your user page? Dynamicism 21:26, 29 January 2008 (GMT)
Here is fine. My userpage is just supposed to be a summary. --Isha 21:54, 29 January 2008 (GMT)
why is me pointing out introversion "useless"? fwiw i think you fit introversion based on this definition. if we can't fucking agree on this definition it's useless, much like this whole website. point is that you can't be an introvert and a LIE. honestly, i agree with ashton that you seem to look and act much more IP. i don't have any opinions on your domains of interest/their depth/breadth because i honestly don't know you well enough to say. implied 01:17, 12 February 2008 (GMT)
changing my vote to IEI. implied 04:53, 12 February 2008 (GMT)
Simply pointing out that you think I'm an introvert is, itself, not useful. When you go on to say -- as you just did -- that you think I am an introtim because I apparently fit certain criteria, it becomes more useful. I don't disagree on the criteria you pointed out, but I do disagree that I fit any of them except for #5 (sort-of). As the disagreement is not about what makes an introtim and introtim but about what makes me an introtim, you'd have to provide some examples of my behaviour to make your point because I think I fit the criteria for being an extrotim much better. --Isha 03:34, 12 February 2008 (GMT)
well, obviously you know yourself. go for it! (; implied 04:53, 12 February 2008 (GMT)
"Your domains of interest seem to be more narrow and deep rather than broad and "shallower" which is generally associated with introversion." This is total bullshit. It's no more narrow and deep than Expat's (in fact, I'd be inclined to say she has as many if not more interests as Expat. Joy has even less than her; at least those she's willing to share. Other than that, fair points, Fabio. --Ezra 13:43, 29 January 2008 (GMT)
I'd disagree with FDG's comment alluding to Introverts having "deeper more narrow interests" than Extraverts as well. Though I can see why one could derive this and I used to believe the same thing myself. Dynamicism 21:26, 29 January 2008 (GMT)

after a rather lengthy conversation with her yesterday, it seemed to me that     is clearly a much more apparent focus in her life than    . basically there are behavioral tidbits that seem to suggest EJ temperament, but i was also able to find a number of behavioral examples in the discussion that seemed to point very strongly to leading    , including a prominent lack of decisiveness and initiative. all things taken together, simply being "restless" and active is suggestive of something, but seems inconsequential as compared to the overwhelming focus on    . so, ILI. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 12:54, 14 February 2008 (GMT)

In such a situation - when someone is unsure of which mirror type - I think the best is to go for relationships. In my own case, when I thought whether I was LIE or ILI in the past, the matter was essentially settled by asking myself: are ESEs or SEIs my conflictors? And are ESIs or SEEs my duals? In my case that settles the issue in my mind. Expat 15:06, 14 February 2008 (GMT)

Here's a vote for ILI after meeting her in person in Europe. LIE would not have even come to mind as a possibility were it not for all the previous discussion of her type. Somehow just too easy-going and adaptive, not inclined to make decisions for others or offer unasked for suggestions and initiative, and also good-natured and supportive in a 'Jonathan subtype' sort of way. Friendly and nice, but not expressive, dramatic, or flamboyant at all as IEIs are. ILI seems to fit well. --Admin 04:42, 7 May 2008 (BST)

[edit] tereg

  • Current consensus: none
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): IEE tereg 15:23, 11 January 2008 (GMT)

EII or IEE-    I keep going back and forth between EII and IEE-Fi. My first choice is EII. tereg 02:35, 3 January 2008 (GMT)

I'm going to assume that this is an EII self-typing. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:24, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
It is. I would say first preference is EII and closely behind is IEE-Fi. tereg 14:08, 4 January 2008 (GMT)

I'm removing my self-typing because I'm really starting to warm to IEE>EII, but I need a little bit more discussion to declare a type. tereg 23:19, 6 January 2008 (GMT)

ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
1 3

[edit] Discussion Area

  • My call is IEE here. I have thought this all along from his videos; I think they are some of the more informative videos available (the quantity of the videos available helps in this regard). EII is perhaps a possibility, but i see an irrational EP type as more likely.     polr probably also fits in with his difficulties in expressing himself adequately; i know at least one other IEE from my literature classes who came up with ideas far more pertinent to the literature than i, but who had tremendous difficulty in expressing these thoughts coherently. i also see creative     in him as being more prominent. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 02:44, 3 January 2008 (GMT)
  • I say EII. I have talked to Tereg online for a while now, and our conversations have gave me the impression that he is rational and introspects much more than any IEE would. He also told me that his father is SLE, and he never had great relations with his father to say the least. The crude practical jokes, expression of "non-PC" social opinions, and other     behavior that his father propagated made him "internally embarrassed" (direct quote).

Direct extraction from a conversation between Tereg and I:

  • teregraph2: I would say dad is because i feel completely paralyzed when I'm around him.
  • teregraph2: I don't know if paralyzed is the right word.
  • teregraph2: It's something LIKE it

Therefore, a EII-LSESLE conflictor relationship would make sense here. Of course, Niffweed made an excellent point about a potential     PoLR that I cannot rebut. So I am leaning on EII, but definitely not ruling out IEE. Kamangir 05:09, 3 January 2008 (GMT)

I wouldn't say that my relationship with my dad is necessarily bad. I have a lot of respect for my dad, and I appreciate what he has done for me throughout my life. But on an emotional level, there's a strong feeling of something left to be desired; I just cannot connect with him on that plane. I won't discredit the examples given above, because those still hold true. I would describe my relationship with dad as proper or more formal, but not sour. tereg 14:21, 4 January 2008 (GMT)


I figured out what I was trying to think of. I feel emotionally handcuffed. Like, I'd like to be able to say certain things or express certain things, but I don't. When I express an opinion and he counters it, I find myself stuck to respond. So, I generally keep my opinions to myself around him. Also, my dad is not LSE, but SLE. tereg 22:31, 3 January 2008 (GMT)

  • IEE. Ne subtype. I've talked to him extensively in chat and gotten to know him well I think. His overall awareness of Ne is extraordinary and speaks strongly as a dominant Base function IMO. His awareness in Fi is similarly well-developed, and I find that I quite resonate with him on Fi-related issues. The Te HA is certainly there as well, he is quite driven to understand how things work in a very Te style of conception and he produces valuable insights in this way. He is very nice and pleasurable to speak with, and I've enjoyed the many conversations we've had. Dynamicism 11:11, 29 January 2008 (GMT)

[edit] UDP

  • Current consensus: none
  • Self-reported typing/statement (if applicable): LSE UDP 17:29, 2 January 2008 (GMT)


ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI
3 3 1

[edit] Discussion Area

  • UDP is an interesting case, but i think it's pretty obvious by now that he's LSI. for one thing, the whole deal with self improvement, which seems to be an incredible life focus for him (which to me is unimaginable) sounds very Image:Introverted_logic.gif Image:Extroverted_sensing.gif, and is a topic that is easily noticeable among some other LSIs that rick has typed such as Dr. Phil and Stephen Covey, as well as Mr. T (who rick has as SLE on his site, but is LSI by my typing). He also seems to have a fascination with cause and purpose, which may be an indication of estimative    . He also seems very serious most of the time. Looking at everything he's done in retrospect, I think LSI is obvious. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 04:29, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
Just a thought, why do you think seriousness is a point towards LSI? The ones I've known aren't really that serious, at least much less than UDP, especially in their more Se moments. - FDG
It isn't necessarily. Overall it's a pretty weak piece of evidence, but if any type could be called unequivocally serious, it would probably be LSI, so i threw it in there. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:26, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
  • In agreement with LSI. I agree with Niffweed17's point above, but I also want to add that he clearly assesses the validity of what people say by its consistency with everything else they've said, even if that thing you said in the past that he just brought up to challenge you with seems unrelated to the point to you. He is prone to jumping on people who change their minds (how could any    -type live up to his expectations of consistency?). He also seems to respond to challenges with     and taunts, etc. --Tanehem 04:48, 2 January 2008 (GMT)


  • I've got hard trouble seeing     in any form in him. As an example of how the LSI I know behave, I can bring PotatoSpirit which seems to me an very good examplary LSI. UDP is just incredibly different from him. He also seems to lack follow through in his self-proposals of taking up exercise ruotines etc etc, things that even to me seem to be very easy to do.
Basically, I think he's a Ti-LII --FDG 13:39, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
  • In all seriousness, how do you come to this conclusion, FDG? --> "Lack follow through in his self-proposals of taking up exercise routines"? You have no way of verifying that. It is not true. I don't even understand how you feel you have the information to make that statement. It makes it seem like, unless I say something on the forum, it doesn't exist. You must realize I do not talk about everything on the forum. UDP 16:29, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
    • You're right, I had picked it up from other posts of yours but if you say it's not true, it isn't. - FDG


  • I think UDP is LII. I can't see any     coming from him either. Just because somebody responds to a challenge with taunts or insults and what not does not mean     IMO. I think there's been a common mistake made in attributing actions and words that superficially resemble     as being    , but in actuality are not. Have any     types vouched in agreement that UDP is among their ranks? Perhaps they would better judges of this than others who do not have a genuine     awareness.
I agree with Salawa that he is very much a stickler for consistency in what people say. I would attribute to being both     and Ixxj. Those with     do make similar styles of demand for consistency, but directed towards different matters. This may or not be relevant, but I do find it interesting that for someone who makes such demands for consistency, he has himself demonstrated much inconsistency over the long-term. He's gone from being LII to LSE and now it's LSI? Odd.
Just for reference, LSI is not his own typing. He's only gone from LII to LSE. I don't know that one type change since he joined the forum is enough to call it "much inconsistency". --Tanehem 16:09, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
Much of his written content is very notional in nature, which is not like an LSI to do. Most of his posts strike me as talking of things an LSI would regard as superfluous. For instance, I remember something awhile back where he made a topic "How an INTj should wash their hair" - or something like that. Not saying it's impossible that an LSI would do that, I would just regard it as highly unlikely. I'm sure one can find many other examples of this sort of thing by UDP on the forum. Dynamicism 16:05, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Why people are so fascinated about that hair thing, I do not understand. I find it particularly striking that you find it of any relevance at all. You can find many examples of me asking people what they think the best way to do things is, or, what they think about cell phones, majors, this or that. I ask other people what their experience was often. UDP 16:51, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
---I'm not jumping all over that one example by any means, nor would I do such a thing. I thought I made it clear that I was only pointing that out as one particular instance of what I see as an observable trend in the style of content that you have regularly posted. And in your case it's not just one particular instance, but rather one iteration in a whole series of different sorts of posts whose subject matter therein strongly converge towards a high probability that you are definitely not LSI. Which is a trend not just limited to you asking questions about what is the best thing in that or that. I remember you also used to post a lot of long introspective posts. And you used to talk a lot about enjoying philosophy and comparing different systems of thought, in a mannerism that seemed a very clear and natural Alpha NT attitude. I'm really not sure how you can think you have an     vulnerable in light of all that or that you are LSI. And these discrepancies are all the more magnified into significance by virtue of the fact your     is not exactly glaringly clear and obvious. Anyway, I'll be more than happy to find a few more examples to highlight this trend if anyone wants and/or needs clarification on what I'm trying to convey. Honestly I'm trying to be constructive and not wanting to fight with anyone or be divisive. And I think everyone is perfectly capable of using the forum to look at UDP's past posts for themselves, so please don't ask me for an exhaustive compilation... thanks. Dynamicism 21:07, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
The hair thing is reflective of the whole self-improvement thing. You have some idea that people should wash their hair and maintain a certain hygiene. It doesn't have to do with     per se, but rather with the firm belief that something should be a certain way and the willingness to do anything to affirm to this rather structural and definite way of thinking (perhaps related to vulnerable    ). Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 17:31, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
Do you even know what post you are referring to? I don't. And no, I don't "have some idea that people should wash their hair and maintain a certain hygiene. (No less that being anything to do with Si...). Could you please explain the nature of your last sentence? Particularly how you are relating it to this "hair post"? From what is written here, it sounds like I wrote a doctrine instructing everyone on how to wash their hair properly.
A related, and, major problem I have with the way people are "typing" me at this time is they are drawing conclusions about me that are unfounded based on what they read on this post - like you here, now, with this hair thing. You think that whatever comments I made about washing my hair are indicative enough to say something like: " with the firm belief that something should be a certain way and the willingness to do anything to affirm to this rather structural and definite way of thinking". Doesn't that seem like you're making a stretch there, just a tad? Or is it just me. Also, perhaps my thoughts have changed about "hair washing" - you didn't bother to ask me at all what I think about it, nor are you referring, or citing, this "infamous" hair post now. I'm quite curious to see what you both see (in that post) as so informative about me. I'll go look for it now. ... UDP 19:02, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
I have to say that I also think that the hair thing etc doesn't mean much, it's not as if UDP spent all of his time posting such stuff. I don't have much to say about his type except that he's almost certainly rational and more likely a sensor than intuitive. Expat 19:07, 2 January 2008 (GMT)
* out of curiosity, where are you drawing that he's more likely a sensor than intuitive? not that i'm arguing against LSI. i do find it odd that an LSI would be posting so much about these odd practical issues -- like which cellphone to buy or whatever. i agree with niffweed on the 7 habits sorts of obsessions seeming very beta, as well as the focus on leadership, etc. implied 20:30, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
* fwiw, LII for now. implied 09:53, 6 January 2008 (GMT)
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=6533 Come on guys, this thread is over a year old now. Yet, you just "remembered" it? And you remembered it well enough to see something significant in order to type me on? And you don't think my stance on things might have changed in 1 year's time, either? Your means for coming up with your assertions seem extremely questionable. Did you even look at the thread, before you said what you said? Or was it all just from memory? And, what post exactly are you referring to? - UDP 19:13, 2 January 2008 (GMT)

as i said, the hair thing is not evidence in and of itself. to answer one of your questions, i was indeed referencing it from memory. and it's also perhaps true that i'm vastly exaggerating the importance of all of these LSI characteristics, to the point where i'm describing them so strongly that they don't really apply. nonetheless, i still see the characteristic "self-help" style that i'm pointing to. in addition to the hair thing, i remember a series of posts on hygiene from long ago that i found ridiculous; for one thing, i remember something along the lines of "LIIs often have bad hygiene. all you LIIs should learn to take showers more often; it's very beneficial to do so." there are other examples which i could search for, but i don't think you can deny the major themes present here of the cognitive choice towards self-improvement, and the pragmatic, result-oriented (nothing to do with process/result at all) attitude, almost dr. phil like, that you champion. as well as the whole champion of a cause and need for meaning (not any specific thread, but rather the general trend that you show). i find that very LSI and     superego. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:23, 2 January 2008 (GMT)

  • While I don't see UDP as an LSI, I don't think LSE should go unquestioned. For example, why did he change from LII to LSE, really? From a functional point of view? How could he go from valuing Ti and being good with Ne to not valuing Ti and being crap with Ne? How could, one minute he devalue Te, and the next minute value it? Worse still, how could he go from having Si HA to having it as his second function? It makes no logical sense.
People are not allowed to improve their understanding and change their viewpoint as a consequence? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:34, 5 January 2008 (GMT)
Also, one other reason why I'm inclined to disagree with UDP's self-typing is his Enneagram type. I wouldn't have any problem with 8w9, apart from the fact that we discussed it months before, and he decided on 1w9. I think he just wanted to be an 8, and he isn't one. We decided, and he - importantly might I add - actually agreed with the 1 typing. Someone differentiated the anger for him, and told him that when he gets angry, it's just like a 1, and nothing like an 8. And yet, what do you know. Anything that will fit in with his own system of views. Later, he even asked me, 'do you really think 8w9 and LSE matches?'. When I replied that they did, he is now 8w9. Since then, my views have changed significantly. At the same time, his may have done, but he's desperately trying to show how he is one thing and not another - regardless of how little or often he does it. It is there; it is evident; it is on display for all. People know he has Ti - it's SO fucking evident. He can't escape it. I mean, he started a thread called "The world needs better Ti understanding"[6] for god's sake; does that really sound like someone who doesn't give a damn about Ti? The sooner he admits he is Ti/Fe over Te/Fi the better. -- Ezra 19:01, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • *sigh* I'll go over this later. It seems you completely forgot about my enneagram study, which involved Riso and other books. That, (as well as some online & irl events in regard to anger) is what changed my mind about 1 and 8, Ezra, not some whim. The books are much better at explaining the types than the simplistic webpages you find online. I find it interesting that you think I value your opinion so much, and decided to change things based on your input alone. Several other people say I don't listen to them at all apparently - perhaps you all ought to get together and have some tea. UDP 22:47, 4 January 2008 (GMT) PS, what a thread to "cite". I believe that is even worse than the shower thread.
  • And one more thing, Ezra - why do you not see me as LSI anymore? UDP 22:54, 4 January 2008 (GMT)
  • Okay, sorry for underestimating your abilities.

I don't see you as LSI because while I saw some similarities between us, I took this to be superficial. I don't see any Se in you, and this is one of the reasons why I can't see you as an LSE. I think you neither value it nor are confident in it. So, essentially, it's Alpha or Delta. And since I'm inclined to see you as a Logical IJ, LII fits far better than any other type. -- Ezra 18:13, 5 January 2008 (GMT)

  • ISTj. I agree with most of niffweed's arguments. Thehotelambush 04:38, 2 March 2008 (GMT)

[edit] Wittmont

  • Current consensus: none
  • Self typing/statement (if applicable):
ILE SEI ESE LII EIE LSI SLE IEI SEE ILI LIE ESI LSE EII IEE SLI

[edit] Discussion Area

Retrieved from "http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=User:Niffweed17/Consensus_List"