Please help type me!!!

[Giggly]

I would vote but I truly don't know. I do remember that at one point you were also INTP and ISTP. Because you have the tendency to "act the type" that you have labeled yourself instead of being free and being yourself, I suggest you take a break from trying to figure out your type AND A BREAK FROM THINKING ABOUT TYPE and just be you. In time, maybe some of us will have a better guess and can help you with that. It might help you too.

 

[strychnine]

I would vote but I truly don't know. I do remember that at one point you were also INTP and ISTP. Because you have the tendency to "act the type" that you have labeled yourself instead of being free and being yourself, I suggest you take a break from trying to figure out your type AND A BREAK FROM THINKING ABOUT TYPE and just be you. In time, maybe some of us will have a better guess and can help you with that. It might help you too.

I had a months-long break already, and in that time I cleared up the acting (as I said in the OP). In the months I was gone, I didn't think about type, I was myself, and I left type an unresolved question. Now that I've come back in a better state of mind I decided to give it another go.

You may remember my neurotic, obsessive type insecurity thread from a few months ago; that mindset is completely gone now. I notice that now it does not bother me to be untyped (I know my type field says ESTP right now but I still consider myself untyped); before, it used to eat away at me. Now I don't usually think about my type unless I'm answering this thread. And I can think about type in general without thinking about my type, allowing me to enjoy this forum and read/contribute to threads without re-developing type insecurity.

I get where the concern comes from, but this is mostly a passing interest now.

And, tbh, at some level I just like the attention.

 

[strychnine]

Update

I think I have more information about my type now. This thread was last updated in October 2011, so ...

Various posts by TPs and some Ti descriptions have convinced me that I am Ti-Fe and not Fi-Te, making my functional order Pe Ti Fe Pi. Looking at it in dichotomies, I am too "T" to be "F", and too "F" to be "T", but functionally, Ti-Fe fits. I hope to figure out what the remaining functions are -- though there is, rest assured, no stress, anxiety, or tension associated with this goal.

I am also more open to being labeled Ne-dominant this time.. haha

I have some S traits and some N traits. I just have to figure out what dominates.

I also seem to have many traits of negative Si, but I mostly see them when reading descriptions of negative Si. From reading descriptions of positive Si, even those written by SJs, I would not gather that I have negative Si. So inferior Ni is still a possibility.

I lack confidence, ability, and interest in manipulating the physical world directly. I like the idea of influencing the physical world from long-distance. Ideally, I'd plan out some system, maybe even figure out how it should best be implemented, and other people do the actual implementation.

 

[Betty Blue]

You need to come to vent [MENTION=10786]Swivelinglight[/MENTION] is your hand twin.

 

[Swivelinglight]

there's no way in he double hockey sticks i'm reading all this thread


but if ur like me its prolly better to forget everything about type like u said u would do in one of those previous posts.

it's surprisingly liberating to not have the constant self analyzation occurring.

 

[strychnine]

I'm going to say how I relate to words typically associated with N, so you can see if I relate to them like an actual N. I suspect that I am an S-type relating to N descriptions. Depending on the responses to this one, I will do the S words as well.

possibilities:

My imagination actually sucks compared to what most of the Ne types here describe. I don't dream about space ships and time travel all day long.

I will try to describe how I see situations -- not really individual situations, but states of things.

I get an impression that something is a certain way. I do not intentionally gather data or observe to get it, it just happens. I usually don't remember the observations that contributed to the impression, so I can't give examples; I remember the trend, not the data. But there will generally be one observation that triggers the realization/impression.

All that is instant and beyond my conscious control, but that is how I think it works.

Once I have the impression, I don't consciously think, "how would I improve this situation?" The answers to that question are just there in my head. I am happiest and most energized then. The feasibility of the answers is another matter entirely, lol.

Also, I tend to extrapolate present trends/happenings, so I am not reacting to the present, but rather responding to what I think the present actually means. I wonder if this is related to Se setting or detecting current trends. As above, I don't think, "where is the present going?" I just get the answers without consciously looking for them.

I tend to relate my knowledge in one area to another area. My learning is not compartmentalized. I don't have, like, "science", "philosophy", "personality type", "computing," etc. in buckets. Knowledge is knowledge and it all fits with everything. I think I'm more about the bridges between places than the places themselves.

--------------

implications, significance, meaning:
I have friends with whom "conversations" are just streams of facts. Things are very specific for them: specific numbers, dates, people, $ amounts, etc. I follow their trains of thought, thinking they are going to come to some kind of conclusion. I keep thinking they will interpret the data, guess at why these things are this way, what does this indicate. What does it tell us. Why is the food so expensive. How can we reduce our food expenses. How can we increase our income. Questions pop into my head, automatically and without effort, in response to stimuli. So do the answers. Whether the answers are actually implementable is another question. That is where judgment (or lack thereof) comes in. I see this being very different from the aforementioned friends, whose effortless behaviour is spitting out long streams of facts without any interpretation.

--------------

symbols:
I actually have no idea what these are. lol. I will say this though. Say I am walking through a park. I would not look at a tree and say, "ooh it's a symbol of life" or anything like that. I might see the tree and a park bench, and think "homeless person" [even if no one were there, the park bench would be enough to make me think of that] --> "treehouses for homeless people!!!" I think this is very Se as it relates directly to the immediately perceived environment -- the tree. Though I guess it relies on the concept of "tree", not the specific tree. Now that I think of it, when I look at the environment, I don't usually consider the specific object, but rather the group of all similar objects. e.g. all trees or all park benches. Most of my ideas are not concrete inventions. I kind of suck at designing physical things, let alone building them. My typical ideas would be more along the lines of improving a certain inefficient system using knowledge from some other area. That is not to say it's completely non-physical, I just don't build things with my hands, nor do I have any desire to.

 

[lunalum]

symbols:
I actually have no idea what these are. lol. I will say this though. Say I am walking through a park. I would not look at a tree and say, "ooh it's a symbol of life" or anything like that. I might see the tree and a park bench, and think "homeless person" [even if no one were there, the park bench would be enough to make me think of that] --> "treehouses for homeless people!!!" I think this is very Se as it relates directly to the immediately perceived environment -- the tree. Though I guess it relies on the concept of "tree", not the specific tree. Now that I think of it, when I look at the environment, I don't usually consider the specific object, but rather the group of all similar objects. e.g. all trees or all park benches. Most of my ideas are not concrete inventions. I kind of suck at designing physical things, let alone building them. My typical ideas would be more along the lines of improving a certain inefficient system using knowledge from some other area. That is not to say it's completely non-physical, I just don't build things with my hands, nor do I have any desire to.

What's your impression of how Ne would vary from this then?

And I'll just say this now... if your answer is that it would be something like simply consciously thinking "the tree is a symbol of life," I'll be skeptical that you have these sorted out well

I guess what I am basically wondering here is what makes you feel S in the face of relating to N descriptions?

Also, what has you sure this time that you are a P, and not an J relating to Ne or Se as a tertiary (or even inferior) function?


Talking to you on Vent would probably help a lot too

 

[Curious_Kitty]

For some reason every time I vote, it says something disconnected my webpage. :/
So I will just say it here: INTP.
Not definite of course. But you are very N, definitely. You come across T but kinda borderline T. The I and P I can't explain...I just get a feeling. I know, not much of a 'logical' reason, but I've become good at picking out subtle details and my mind automatically goes to the conclusion.

 

[strychnine]

What's your impression of how Ne would vary from this then?

And I'll just say this now... if your answer is that it would be something like simply consciously thinking "the tree is a symbol of life," I'll be skeptical that you have these sorted out well

That comment was just to illustrate how I interpreted the word "symbol".

I would think Ne would be like: tree --> what if we stacked trees on top of one another and climbed to Mars?!

The difference, to me, is that the Ne one is much less realistic. I don't want to say it's outright impossible because we might be able to work around the physical limitations somehow. But it's farfetched.

Whereas with the "treehouses for homeless people" thing I said, it's realistic. One could feasibly build treehouses for homeless people, provided one had funding and adequate trees and participants to build the houses. And those hurdles are a lot smaller than the hurdles involved in climbing trees to Mars.

Honestly, the Mars thing seems silly to me, I would seldom come up with something that farfetched in my regular thoughts.

On the other hand, when it comes to extrapolating trends (which I talked about in my last post), things can get farfetched easily, and I will maintain that those farfetched ideas are realistic and almost manifest.

I guess what I am basically wondering here is what makes you feel S in the face of relating to N descriptions?

I also relate to S descriptions and have a lot of S traits. Ss relate to N descriptions all the time, see that Eiffel Tower picture thread and every S on those forum who joined self-typed as an N. I think these are my S traits (but they're not the only ones):

- shying away from global/universal issues
if they are not extremely interesting, I tend to go "oh, there are too many variables, it's a waste of time, I will never understand this much." I can stick with these systems a bit longer at the qualitative level, but for quantification I prefer smaller-scale systems.

- fact-based. I will take things as true without facts backing them up, but I have a hard time believing something in the face of evidence that disproves/contradicts it.

- my ideas are actionable. Most of the time, I consider them and ultimately decide not to act on them, but they could be acted on fairly easily unlike the Mars thing.

Also, what has you sure this time that you are a P, and not an J relating to Ne or Se as a tertiary (or even inferior) function?


Talking to you on Vent would probably help a lot too

I have a distaste for both Si and Ni, so they are probably not in my top two.

I'll look into Vent, but I really don't want to use my voice.

 

[strychnine]

I don't want to go by stereotypes, but here are some points anyway:

Why I seem to lack Ne:
- not preoccupied with time travel, space ships, or any other farfetched thing
- my ideas are actionable...most of the time, they can be carried out in the current state of the world. Most of them are not actually carried out, but they could be.

Why I seem to lack Se:
- never liked sports / always sucked at them
- very uncoordinated
- lack of interest in physically exhilarating ("adrenaline junkie") activities... not because they are exhilarating, I'm just not interested. I don't want to sky dive, rock climb, etc.
- I don't think that I need to experience something to know about it / understand it. I think I can understand something as well or better by reading about it.
- I trust my [predictions / views of the future / hypotheses] and often use them to make decisions without experience to back them up.
- I don't learn well by doing. It's not my preferred method of learning.
- my personal (self-initiated, free time) projects don't involve building/constructing things. I don't like working with my hands and I am not good at it.
- prefer to think or talk rather than do (i.e. not action-oriented)

For some reason every time I vote, it says something disconnected my webpage. :/
So I will just say it here: INTP.
Not definite of course. But you are very N, definitely. You come across T but kinda borderline T. The I and P I can't explain...I just get a feeling. I know, not much of a 'logical' reason, but I've become good at picking out subtle details and my mind automatically goes to the conclusion.

Thanks for your vote. Sorry I didn't see your post earlier, don't know how I missed it. I agree with borderline T. I'm pretty sure I'm a TP with strong Fe.

The "very N" is where my issue is... you could well be right, but I'm just not sure yet.

No worries, I get that... you only need a few data points to get a kind of "vibe".

Thanks!

 

[strychnine]

Socionics Se and Ne descriptions.

Socionics IEE description: [I think it matches JCF ENFP; for the record I don't think I'm an ENFP]

IEEs easily become enamoured with new ideas and prospects and tend to start working on them immediately, almost impulsively. The tendency to be preoccupied with yet unrealized potential makes it hard for them to bring existing projects and situations to full completion and materialization. It is easier to start something new than finish something old. When instilled with a sense of opportunity and novelty, the pace at which IEEs begin new undertakings can be almost frightening.

If I think of a new idea with high potential, I start working on it right away, with enthusiasm and energy I don't have later on in the project. I relate completely to a "tendency to be preoccupied with yet unrealized potential"... it is an obsession with the new idea and what it may lead to... an obsession with the unknown. Once I have made enough progress to see where something leads, it's known, and I tend to unintentionally forget about it.

IEEs need to have quite a bit of free time available to investigate new opportunities, ideas, insights, and people that come along their way. Somehow they manage to keep pursuing these things even when they are overloaded with work and responsibility.

IEEs are "big picture" people: they easily grasp large concepts and effortlessly translate their observations into generalizations and trends. When learning a new subject, understanding the basic principles and how they fit together is more important than rote memorization of facts. They like to combine multiple things and ideas, rather than follow one thing to a logical conclusion. IEEs hate missing opportunities of any sort. They typically love irony because unforeseeable things can puzzle and excite them at the same time.

As I said earlier in the thread, I tend to generalize my observations to the point where I don't remember the observations, only the trend. I tend to look for the basic principles instead of memorizing but I thought that was Ti. The rest I said earlier...I tend to live at the intersections of different fields/topics/etc. instead of focusing on one field (I'm kind of a generalist).

------------------------

Socionics Se description:

Se includes the ability to know how much power, force, or influence is latent or required.

Types that value Se are much more comfortable with direct behavior aimed at making an immediate impact. This may at times be perceived as abrasive, particularly by types who do not value Se. There is usually a competitive edge to this style of group interaction, resulting in a more intense atmosphere than that of introverted sensing (Si)-valuing quadras. They appreciate contemplating possibilities only if they feel like they stand to gain something from it, or it has a perceived potential impact on "the real world".

I'm not sure what is meant by making an impact. I am not very competitive though. Even in an argument or debate I have no desire to win for its own sake. If I'm right but can't articulate myself well, so I don't appear to "win", it's ok. If I'm right but the other person can't refute my argument and instead resorts to insults or threats, that is also ok (provided they don't actually physically hurt me), because my goal is not to "win" but to hold the opinion that is true. If threatened, though, I back down, walk away, and do something else instead. I am very aware of being threatened, I can clearly tell when someone intends to harm me.

"They appreciate contemplating possibilities only if [...] it has a perceived potential impact on "the real world"."

This is sort of true. I like to think about possibilities for their own sake, but often get into career-oriented phases, where I give more weight to realistic ideas, e.g. potential business opportunity, potential resume-building opportunities (something I could do that I could put on my resume), etc.

Unlike Si, which is about one's subjective sensory experience (how intense or enjoyable it is), Se is about achieving an object of desire. It gives one the ability to influence, bend, and push situations and people in order to achieve such an object, rather than to enjoy the situation one is in.

I am decent at getting people to work with/help me, but I don't force or coerce them. I try to convince them using reasons, or get them to see the same potential I see... if they see what I see, I think they will agree with me. So I try to show them why I am enthusiastic about a project (for example) and that usually works, meaning I get them to work with me, or I get permission from a person in authority (which is often needed), etc. I try to change the person's mind rationally. I want them to be able to choose rather than be intimidated.

Se as a base (1st) function (SLE and SEE) [ESTP and ESFP?]

The individual feels at home among people who are actively doing something and interacting with each other directly (visibly), and is able to organize people, move them around as necessary, and guide them in achieving a specific goal. He or she likes obedience and even subservience in others, since it allows him to "make things happen" more effectively.

He is keenly aware of territorial conflicts and confrontational behavior occurring around him. He very quickly becomes confrontational when others try to make him move or get him to do something in an aggressive or confrontational way. He quickly recognizes when people are trying to get each other to do something or are trying to organize him for some purpose. He also spontaneously uses aggression to achieve his own goals.

He wants to make all decisions himself about what he will do, wear, eat, look like, etc., and resents any attempts by others to make these decisions for him. However, he is willing to make use of other peoples' ideas, advice, and creativity, as long as he plays the most visible role.

He enjoys testing his will in challenging situations and views life as a sort of obstacle course, full of adversity and challenges, that must be weathered and conquered.

I don't really want obedience, I would prefer people to work with me. I also don't want to silence people...I would like to hear their suggestions or points of view.

I recognize threats directed *at me* fairly easily, but I don't become confrontational, I leave (as I said earlier). I also don't use aggression unless extremely stressed (it's very rare) -- if there is a problem, I bring it up instead of suppressing it, but I don't use aggression.

I do want to make my own decisions about my own life. In a group project, though, my goal is not to be the most visible. I would rather use my own idea, my own insight, etc. and if others are working with me, my own visibility is far less important than my idea.

I view challenges as what they are... Without some adversity, I think it would be too easy, and I wouldn't feel like I was actually accomplishing anything. But I don't see them as challenges to be conquered...when I overcome an obstacle I seldom look back and say, "look what I overcame!"...my focus is usually on further progress.

------------------------

I was cleaning up some crap and found some old essays from about a year ago. My TA said that I am not connecting the ideas I presented, but I don't know why that is... Is it that I am not good at connecting ideas, or just that I don't want to explain the connections between them? The whole essay was on a small topic and all the ideas were very closely related, I don't think there is much to explain, but apparently my TA wanted me to spell it out for him.

I remember another TA writing something like, "Try to connect the ideas for your reader."

Actually I think I've gotten this not connecting ideas comment on quite a few assignments over the years. I never asked them what they meant, lol.

------------------------

Later on I'll do these:

Socionics Ne description
Socionics Ne vs. Se

Why Socionics? I've read too many JCF descriptions and I'm hoping these are a little different.

 

[strychnine]

On this forum, I relate most to EFPs. Usually ENFPs because there aren't many ESFPs around (or there are but they're mistyped). ENFP posts seem to resonate at a fundamental level (obviously not all the time or all their posts). With other posters I can still relate, but the posts don't usually **resonate**. Like the phrase "tendency to be preoccupied with yet unrealized potential" in the above IEE description... it resonated in such a way that I had a hard time explaining how. Also, some of my favourite musicians are probably ENFP, and when I listen to their interviews and lyrics there is the same resonance. I wouldn't have phrased things the way they did, and I don't always agree with them (obviously), but there is still a strong resonance. Even this description doesn't do the resonance much justice, it's very fundamental.

[There are other musicians I like whose lyrics don't resonate, by the way, so this isn't just a matter of liking their music.]

But I'm not an ENFP or an ESFP. I know that Fi-Te are the wrong judging functions. I am Ti-Fe or Fe-Ti.

 

[strychnine]

Lol, why such a nick?

hah well... I'm a chem major and one of our professors talked once about how the phrase "all natural" is used to sell things even though it doesn't hold much meaning. His example was that strychnine is "all natural", but it's not too good for you heh. Even before that lecture I thought the false dichotomy between natural and unnatural was ridiculous. So now every time I think of strychnine I think of the false dichotomy that so many people seem to advocate for -- and that you could conclude from their beliefs that they should eat strychnine.

(btw thanks for visiting my thread lolol)

This is the concept that inspired my username.

I mentally refer to this conversation every time I see my username.

Because yes. This is correct.

 

[Punderstorm]

I think SEE-Fi fits and your MBTI could be xSTP. That could explain your confusion.

 

[strychnine]

I think SEE-Fi fits and your MBTI could be xSTP. That could explain your confusion.

Oh, that's interesting. I didn't think of having a different MBTI type. I relate to F in the MBTI though, the only dichotomies that are unclear for me in the MBTI are E/I and S/N. I'm kinda esFP tbh. LOL

Thanks!!

 

[Punderstorm]

Oh, that's interesting. I didn't think of having a different MBTI type. I relate to F in the MBTI though, the only dichotomies that are unclear for me in the MBTI are E/I and S/N. I'm kinda esFP tbh. LOL

Thanks!!

Oh!
esFP describes SEE-Fi pretty accurately in terms of MBTI. I think that the lowercase letters help make your typing more accurate. Essentially you are confused because you don't really seem to have a strong preference.

 

[strychnine]

Oh!
esFP describes SEE-Fi pretty accurately in terms of MBTI. I think that the lowercase letters help make your typing more accurate. Essentially you are confused because you don't really seem to have a strong preference.

Yeah, that makes sense. Fi subtype makes one more introverted and perhaps less "S" oriented as well, slightly more "N" ish, as Fi is closer to MBTI "N" than Se is, given its abstraction. I'm a rather strong Fi subtype as well.

So yeah. I agree.

 

[Masokissed]

I can see ESTP as a back up because you're composed, but Fi subtype can be where the composure is coming from.

 

[strychnine]

I can see ESTP as a back up because you're composed, but Fi subtype can be where the composure is coming from.

Ah, that's a good call. I do seem somewhat more contained than the typical ESFP, or ExxP in general, kinda. Yeah. But that can be the Fi. I did mistype as ISFP for several years.

 

[strychnine]

I AM A TURD!!!!


wHAT TYPE IS A TURD???