Legitimate Type Me Thread

[Sil]

Yeah -- type-related friction, specifically. A total absence of the "click" I feel with other xxTJs.

Perhaps it's more personal than type related. Your reaction is definitely uncommon among the TJ types I know and interact with.

 

[existence]

Fe is people focused, with an eye for larger good as well as group dynamic. As I understand it, a strong Fe user knows how to direct and move people as needed if they feel it is for the right purpose.

For me, relationships (individual and group based) are my Achilles heel. They are the area I completely fail at and struggle to maintain. It's not a matter or lacking some social skill or an ability to present one's self in a likeable fashion. I'm quite good at both of those (for the most part). But I tend to overlook, miss, or otherwise ignore relationship dynamics. Is is the theme to many of my life mistakes.

Unless we believe that a Fe user can lack a focus on people, then Fe is not possible.

Hi, I didn't check the forum in a while, I only saw your response now. So, I read your newer posts here, I'm thinking ENTJ fits best taking all this into account. In Socionics, LIE-Ni and Fe role for the Fe aspect seems fine. I don't think I'll revise this typing, since upon this review, things add up quite well.

 

[Sil]

For anyone interested, ENTP ILE-Ti seems to be the final solution.

ENTP ILE-TI 8w7 sp/sp

 

[existence]

For anyone interested, ENTP ILE-Ti seems to be the final solution.

ENTP ILE-TI 8w7 sp/sp

I find it hard to imagine ILE being type 8. MBTI ENTP maybe (since it's a type idea that is, so to speak, diffuse enough to connect anything almost randomly with it), ILE nah.

What was wrong with LIE-Ni? And you dropped the J in MBTI why? If I can ask.


I find it hard to see ILE overall. Here are some of my main reasons for that:

- You very explicitly devalued Ne here: "I don't care about concepts unless they have real-world relevance and implications (for light discussion, staying at conceptual level is fine, but ultimately it doesn't interest me)."

Alpha NT (Ne/Ti of ILE) is all about that kind of light discussion.

...Also, you used to be hesistant about being Ne-dom: "I'll have to think on this some more, but I'd say it's largely a gut feeling based on observation of how ENFPs and ENTPs interact with the world. There are similarities, to be sure, but there are major differences."


- Also ILE would never say this with their Fi PoLR:

"Yes. Very aware of how I feel about things. Often ignore it, especially if it feels irrationally-based (as in there are no immediate facts on hand that justify the emotion). Ignore doesn't mean I can act against it...I can't act against the value-feelings I have. But I can control how they are displayed in public, especially how often."


- Ti ego would also not say this: "Eh, I don't know about an internal logical awareness. I think I notice whether or not there are logical consistencies in ideas, but it's more gut than head based (Si reacts first and then I have to spend some time pouring over the details for my brain to catch up and identify what it is that's rubbing me wrong)."

Still curious what it means in everyday words (I think you didn't end up writing about it earlier): "Si reacts first".

Would you be able to say something more on it?

 

[Sil]

I apologize for the shitty formatting. My phone is not allowing me to fix it.

I find it hard to imagine ILE being type 8. MBTI ENTP maybe (since it's a type idea that is, so to speak, diffuse enough to connect anything almost randomly with it), ILE nah.

Personally, I don't believe any socionics/enneagram combination is impossible. Improbable, perhaps.
That said, I don't believe I am an 8 anymore.

What was wrong with LIE-Ni? And you dropped the J in MBTI why? If I can ask.

Primarily because I don't see evidence of Ni or Se.
To summarize my understanding of both:

Ni tends to reach a singular conclusion. It takes many "things" and coalesces it all into a prediction of sorts. Good Ni is visionary, bad Ni is borderline paranoia.

Se is about possibility in the physical world; what Ne does for the mental. It's about recognizing the potential through the senses of things around us. Which explains why Se users are often highly in tune with the energy and power dynamics of others and themselves.

I relate more to Se than Ni, and not at all to Ni. I am expansive in my thought process, not merging.

Additionally, I dont relate to Si Polr. I don't like paying attention to Si oriented things such as health and comfort, but I don't actually overlook them. They don't hit me the way Polr would.

I find it hard to see ILE overall. Here are some of my main reasons for that: - You very explicitly devalued Ne here: "I don't care about concepts unless they have real-world relevance and implications (for light discussion, staying at conceptual level is fine, but ultimately it doesn't interest me)."

This is one of those few points where I should have rephrased. I like discussing ideas/concepts, but unless they can ultimately bring real world value (I learn from it, I can use it to achieve something, I can connect it to another idea to form a better understanding of something), I won't stay on them for long.
Once the basics of the idea have been grasped, I am bored and move along to something new. I am a jack of all trades in my behavior, preferring surface comprehension to mastery.
I don't see that as devaluing Ne, but rather harnessing it into a larger framework. I like ideas and possibilities, but I also like real world results and achievements. There has to be a balance.
Does that still devalue Ne in your opinion?

Alpha NT (Ne/Ti of ILE) is all about that kind of light discussion. ...Also, you used to be hesistant about being Ne-dom: "I'll have to think on this some more, but I'd say it's largely a gut feeling based on observation of how ENFPs and ENTPs interact with the world. There are similarities, to be sure, but there are major differences."

This is still true. I think Ne types, particular those online, tend to be far more of a devil's advocate, argumentative breed than i am. I don't have an understanding or interest in saying the perfect inflammatory thing to stir the pot. I don't seek argument for the sake of it. I don't thrive on a battle of mental acrobatics.
I did when I was younger, but I don't anymore and haven't for a long time.This might be an age thing, but it could also definitely be a type thing.

Also ILE would never say this with their Fi PoLR: "Yes. Very aware of how I feel about things. Often ignore it, especially if it feels irrationally-based (as in there are no immediate facts on hand that justify the emotion). Ignore doesn't mean I can act against it...I can't act against the value-feelings I have. But I can control how they are displayed in public, especially how often." - Ti ego would also not say this: "Eh, I don't know about an internal logical awareness. I think I notice whether or not there are logical consistencies in ideas, but it's more gut than head based (Si reacts first and then I have to spend some time pouring over the details for my brain to catch up and identify what it is that's rubbing me wrong)."

This feels a bit No true Scotsman.
Perhaps you could explain how it conflicts with Fi Polr instead?
Regarding my comment on Si-- I had understood Si at the time to be an internal consistency monitor, something I've come to realize is more Ti's domain. Not internal consistency in a Fi way, but in a logic setting.
But the rest is true. I feel the inconsistency on a gut level first, followed by head.
Why would a Ti ego not have this same response?

Still curious what it means in everyday words (I think you didn't end up writing about it earlier): "Si reacts first". Would you be able to say something more on it?

Explained partially above, but to clarify. Have you ever been in a situation/conversation where something is off? You don't know what it is, but you know something is wrong.
You feel it first, but you have to sort through the facts to figure out the cause for your feelings. That is what I was referring to with Si. Which in hindsight, is probably not Si.
I apologize if I haven't been clear. I'm trying to answer your questions without shutting you down. I just want to explain my understanding so there is no confusion.

 

[existence]

I apologize for the shitty formatting. My phone is not allowing me to fix it.

No worries.

Primarily because I don't see evidence of Ni or Se.
To summarize my understanding of both:

Ni tends to reach a singular conclusion. It takes many "things" and coalesces it all into a prediction of sorts. Good Ni is visionary, bad Ni is borderline paranoia.

Se is about possibility in the physical world; what Ne does for the mental. It's about recognizing the potential through the senses of things around us. Which explains why Se users are often highly in tune with the energy and power dynamics of others and themselves.

I relate more to Se than Ni, and not at all to Ni. I am expansive in my thought process, not merging.

Se is about tangible force, not about possibilities. I'm not sure if there is a misunderstanding there (on my end or on yours)?

Additionally, I dont relate to Si Polr. I don't like paying attention to Si oriented things such as health and comfort, but I don't actually overlook them. They don't hit me the way Polr would.

Not sure what kind of "hit" you mean. PoLR is often a blind spot, sometimes it can be annoying, too.

How are you with aesthetics?

This is one of those few points where I should have rephrased. I like discussing ideas/concepts, but unless they can ultimately bring real world value (I learn from it, I can use it to achieve something, I can connect it to another idea to form a better understanding of something), I won't stay on them for long.
Once the basics of the idea have been grasped, I am bored and move along to something new. I am a jack of all trades in my behavior, preferring surface comprehension to mastery.
I don't see that as devaluing Ne, but rather harnessing it into a larger framework. I like ideas and possibilities, but I also like real world results and achievements. There has to be a balance.
Does that still devalue Ne in your opinion?

This is more ambiguous, not necessarily devalued based on this.

This is still true. I think Ne types, particular those online, tend to be far more of a devil's advocate, argumentative breed than i am. I don't have an understanding or interest in saying the perfect inflammatory thing to stir the pot. I don't seek argument for the sake of it. I don't thrive on a battle of mental acrobatics.
I did when I was younger, but I don't anymore and haven't for a long time. This might be an age thing, but it could also definitely be a type thing.

I see.

Also ILE would never say this with their Fi PoLR: "Yes. Very aware of how I feel about things. Often ignore it, especially if it feels irrationally-based (as in there are no immediate facts on hand that justify the emotion). Ignore doesn't mean I can act against it...I can't act against the value-feelings I have. But I can control how they are displayed in public, especially how often." - Ti ego would also not say this: "Eh, I don't know about an internal logical awareness. I think I notice whether or not there are logical consistencies in ideas, but it's more gut than head based (Si reacts first and then I have to spend some time pouring over the details for my brain to catch up and identify what it is that's rubbing me wrong)."

This feels a bit No true Scotsman.

What sounds like no true scotsman about it to you?

Perhaps you could explain how it conflicts with Fi Polr instead?

Fi PoLR has trouble with knowing how they feel about things.

Regarding my comment on Si-- I had understood Si at the time to be an internal consistency monitor, something I've come to realize is more Ti's domain. Not internal consistency in a Fi way, but in a logic setting.
But the rest is true. I feel the inconsistency on a gut level first, followed by head.
Why would a Ti ego not have this same response?

Sounded like it's not natural for you to focus on the process of consciously evaluating logical-impersonal facts in a Ti fashion.

If you have a typical example of what sort of stuff (ideas/statements) you analyze in this way, that would show more, though.

Explained partially above, but to clarify. Have you ever been in a situation/conversation where something is off? You don't know what it is, but you know something is wrong.
You feel it first, but you have to sort through the facts to figure out the cause for your feelings. That is what I was referring to with Si. Which in hindsight, is probably not Si.
I apologize if I haven't been clear. I'm trying to answer your questions without shutting you down. I just want to explain my understanding so there is no confusion.

Yeah, it's not Si. Still interested in typical example of this sort of thing.

And really no worries