Oh.
People pondering duality (Kdude and others) really got myself thinking. I thought for many days which thought patterns I followed in my childhood. Then I wondered some possibilities:
ISFP. Well, being antithesis to what I feel like most (even now), it might be .. too little information to know. I met my favorite ISFP the other day; he and I share the like for some extreme sports (thought to associate with Se), which I shared with him, but we didn't get much further discussion on that. I think he does those sports a bit more than I.
INFP. I know a bit more of INFP than I know of ISFP, and I believe INFP would be a better match in some way.. some way. Not sure.
ENTP. Yes, now this touches some Big5 results I've got. Jaguar pointed out that I had identified myself as ENTP 3 years ago and had very high E, O and very low N. Probably typical of ENTP and few other types. Low A. Low C, typical of ENTP. I thought about this for days. I think I hit a development phase in my life few years ago, and I decided that upping my "A", agreeableness would be cool, but it would also bring disturbance and might not be worth it. I really did not see the profit in developing to that direction. Then I decided on my conscientiousness, and decided that although it wouldn't feel cool to be more conscientious, I would get more out of my life by learning that, and I would really have to develop that. So, I'm seeing that I've taken years to see what increased conscientiousness would do to me, and I'm happy about the results. I still really prefer to stay close to middle. There's so many great benefits to be had by not maxing out that scale. My optimum, really, is to be a bit conscientious .. a bit J. Random variation, given situation, really moves me from high P to high J. Flexibility, madness - I'm not taking stance now.
ENTJ. Yes, why not.
ENFJ why not that too.
ENFP. It's feasible, but with the reservation that my values have developed to the point that I prefer to act otherwise.
..
Then about socionics. I haven't studied them so intensely so far, so I have been unable to respond.
..
Then, what I know of myself.
DISC says I'm a dominating, influential individual, and as little influential I am (I would wish for more), I am influential enough in the realm of this test. No, I am not influential enough to decide on big money, fate of humanity or the fate of one employee. But yes, I am influential in the realm of this test. Other aspects? Well, C has developed just as my big5 scores. I'm talking about conscientiousness. I have no need to artificially boost my C scores, something I doubted of myself perhaps 2 years ago. At that time, I thought that C is the winner, and people who associate with it see themselves as a winner type - making their self-examination a suspecting one. Now I've come in terms with it, and see that I'm slightly more conscientious than I'm not.
I've pondered if I've reversed my behavior or thinking because of some trauma, distress or anything such.
I can't understand my life long enough in the past that I would understand the desire for introversion from another reason than shyness. S/N, I guess that somewhat intelligent people prefer N on the average, and the amount that I prefer N doesn't give a clue of my true preference. I've thought of this too. In some ways, I am S kind of guy, but I'm able to understand very many layers from bottom to top, just on the basis of reason and concrete evidence. Then again, I remember learning physics and chemistry. Knowing that we are built of atoms had a profound effect on me. I thought myself on the basis of that perspective for a long time. I thought it was the most substantial system of knowledge that could be used, yet far away, because there are far too much atoms to calculate them all and conduct our daily business thinking about them. I understood that abstractions refer to patterns in things, and they are far more effective in reflecting the reality. So if I'm S or N, I do not know. If I don't have to control the variable (statistics speak), then I'm N. If I do have to control the variable, then I'm S or N, I do not know.
If I make a simplistic probabilistic model and assume MBTI type letters as independent, I arrive at this: 90% confidence of being more E than I, 65% confidence of being more N than S, 60% confidence of being more T than F, and 56% confidence of being more J than P. If the variables are independent, my highest probability will be ENTJ, with a bit less than 20% chance.
ENTJ: 20% chance
ENTP: 15% chance
ENFJ: 13% chance
ESTJ: 10,5% chance
If I go by function preference, I guess there's different order to be had. I know of Ti that I professed Ti because of inability. When I learned, I started to prefer Te over Ti. This is at suspect though, because what I've learned doesn't give a completely credible view of Te. I think that Ti is well handled though. I don't know if more resources would help me.
And what it matters.. well, I thought about this for days, then again for days after it, the thing didn't cross my mind. I've been busy applying my methods of bayesian statistic to search tree algorithms. It sounds stereotypically NT but could be anything. I've drank and eaten good food and exercised, which suggest.. hell, any type.
OCEAN and DISC really come ahead in this task. I forgot to mention it in the thread of most reliable tests, but OCEAN has been really good for me. Reliable and accurate. Even though I like myself, like other people and I'm happy, I'm still not agreeable, although there's a nagging feeling that I should be. I think that being agreeable is a winner attitude in a way, but I don't care for that kind of win. I do desire win in almost all of it's forms, but I do not wish a win in that.
Puhh. I'm sorry to be under influence while writing this message.
ENFP: 10,2% chance