A Very Accurate Socionics Test.

[Frosty]

Ne- 23
Ni-21
Se-14
Si-15
Te-16
Ti-17
Fe-20
Fi-21

 

[Serendippopotamus]

Hm interesting! The functions were totally different to what I thought but I guess I'm going more of MBTI

My results:

Si (23)>Fi (18)> Ni (14)>Se (12)>Fe/Te (10 each)> Ti (8)>Ne(7)

What the?

 

[Starry]

This test is very rudimentary. If anyone has doubts I advice to take the standar test here.

[MENTION=18819]five sounds[/MENTION] , your results are consistent with IEE-Ne

[MENTION=10082]Starry[/MENTION] , your results could point to ILE (due to high Ti) instead of IEE

[MENTION=22178]magpie[/MENTION] , you VI ESI-Se (IMO) regardless of your result.

[MENTION=32384]Taibreah[/MENTION], with 0 in the Se result, that could point to your PoLR, and with higher Ti than Fi, that would make you LII.

[MENTION=27266]FiyaXiii[/MENTION] read up on the quadras, temperaments, and Se or Fe dual-seeking or PoLR so you can decide.

Oooooooooo I feel smarter already! I've got your number [MENTION=5643]EcK[/MENTION]


thank you so much erg

 

[EcK]

Oooooooooo I feel smarter already! I've got your number [MENTION=5643]EcK[/MENTION]


thank you so much erg

I think you meant to tag erg but you love me so you tagged me

 

[Starry]

I think you meant to tag erg but you love me so you tagged me

I can't wait to do the logic with you!

 

[EcK]

I can't wait to do the logic with you!

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Did I post on this thread before or something ?

 

[erg]

You see me as Se subtype over Fi subtype?

Yep.

[MENTION=29951]erg[/MENTION]

I did get the LII INTj on the Socionics test that you linked. I took it a couple times, just because I wanted to be sure I didn't make a mistake when answering the questions, and it didn't change. But from what I've been reading on here is that INTj Socionics = INTP Jung/MBTI. Is that right? I also don't get what the picture selecting accomplishes in determining my type. But, I think I ended up selecting the people that were smiling the most, were outside the most, and the ones that didn't have a drink in their hands.

Sorry, but what is PoLR? Thanks for your input.

PoLR is the most vulnerable function in the makeup of a person. For LII is Se. I don't do MBTI anymore so I'm not sure of the equivalence but LII is Ti Ne Si Fe.

 

[magpie]

Yep.

Why?

 

[existence]

Conclusion:
Ti>Ni>Ne>Si>Te>Fi>Se>Fe

[MENTION=26684]existence[/MENTION] Any input for me when it comes to this? Stuck between LII and ILI.

Can't tell that from these results, unfortunately.

A tip though: leading Ti has a static view of the world, leading Ni has a changing dynamic one of it. Which would describe you of these two?

Also [MENTION=29951]erg[/MENTION]'s advice on what to read up on was good.

Ne (24)
Ni (25)
Se (7)
Si (10)
Te (13)
Ti (16)
Fe (18)
Fi (14)


What are we? Who is going to tell us what we are?
(That Fi section was so weird to me. That was describing the most bland person in the universe I almost feel.)

edit: [MENTION=26684]existence[/MENTION] are you the expert here? Would you be willing to tell five sounds and myself our types? That would be so helpful as this has been confusing to me for the longest time - thank you.

I'm into Socionics a lot you could say.

Your type isn't entirely clear from the results but I wouldn't exclude EIE for you besides IEE because of how you view the Fi part and you did score a bit lower on it, as well. EIE-Ni more than EIE-Fe, maybe.

NF type is for sure though from how you come off here (besides the results themselves), a more distant third option would be IEI if EIE or IEE don't work enough.

Let me know if that helps.

As for [MENTION=18819]five sounds[/MENTION], NF again, can't say more but if the IEE self-typing works then sure these results are consistent with that.

This test is very rudimentary. If anyone has doubts I advice to take the standard test here.

Yeah this test is rudimentary in the way that it doesn't show preferences directly. It does differentiate well between some of the IEs if someone wants to look closer so that's what I like in this test.

That sociotype test you linked is ok, except it can mix up Rationality/Irrationality way too easily (based on the results I got from people that I asked to take this test), my guess is it gives too much weight to some questions related to that dichotomy when calculating the results.

[MENTION=22178]magpie[/MENTION] , you VI ESI-Se (IMO) regardless of your result.

If you can put it into words how he/she VI's as ESI-Se, it would be more helpful to see how reliable the VI is for the typing of magpie. IMO, too

[MENTION=32384]Taibreah[/MENTION], with 0 in the Se result, that could point to your PoLR, and with higher Ti than Fi, that would make you LII.

It's not necessarily PoLR, for example for me the lowest result is Fe, which for me is my DS, not my PoLR. But yes, it can be PoLR for those results.
[MENTION=32384]Taibreah[/MENTION]: I wouldn't exclude NF type besides the LII suggestion, which is okayish too.

 

[FiyaXiii]

[MENTION=27266]FiyaXiii[/MENTION] read up on the quadras, temperaments, and Se or Fe dual-seeking or PoLR so you can decide.

People shit on wikisocion all the time, and there are so many profiles?? Gulenko, Neskova, Filatova and etc. What am I supposed to look at exactly cause with Socionics there's so much reading material. I'm trying to narrow down the reading list cause I know I'll do extensive research afterwards anyways. I haven't seen the temperaments been talked about with socionics, any trusted links?

 

[Taibreah]

I read the wikisocion that compared Ti-LII and Ne-LII, and from the information provided there I find myself relating more to the Ne subtype than the Ti subtype. If LII were the case for me that would make me LII-Ne?

Here are excerpts from the wikisocion page that I relate/don't relate to.

Ne-LII
I relate to this:
-Able to analyze specific topics in great depth. (Maybe not in great depth)
-Likes to analyze various phenomena and processes. Inclined towards anything that is new and unusual, especially if it falls into the sphere of his interests. Often has a rich imagination and tries to introduce elements of creativity into his work.
-Stable in his work performance, but quickly grows tired of routine and is in need of fresh impressions and changes.
-Reserved, amiable to an extent, polite, and even-tempered, but rarely becomes very close with anyone, for he easily tires of social interaction.
-Enemy of the administrative pressuring and control; considers it obstructive to the development of a person's potential.
-Convinced that the main thing in work is not sense of duty but interest in the project. Strives for independence. However, at the same time he is usually disciplined, punctual, and conscientious.
-Will not dramatically change his beliefs, conclusions, habits and orientations under the influence of new facts and circumstances

I'm not like this:
-May be a good speaker and lecturer capable of briefly and clearly conveying the material to his listeners.
-Due to high self-esteem and a developed sense of dignity, it can be difficult for him to admit to being wrong.
-Makes up his plans himself and follows them exactly.

Ti-LII
I relate to this:
-Does not like uninvited guests and unexpected phone calls. Unlikely to take initiative with unfamiliar people. Has few friends.
-Does not seek to win over the sympathies of others. Prefers to talk about topics that interest him.
-He doesn't like compliments, imposing and annoying advice, or too much attention directed at his person, but deep inside he is in need of a positive evaluation of his activities.

I'm not like this:
-Is well-versed in systems, schemes, classifications and structures. Identifies the main components and cuts off anything that is of secondary nature.
-Very straightforward in his behavior, lacks in flexibility and diplomacy in his relations. Fairly stable in his feelings and affections.
-If the topic is of no interest to him, he tries to avoid the conversation to not waste his time.
-Knows how to plan his activities so as to avoid unnecessary congestion.
-Inclined to present himself with increased demands.

I've also read over the character traits of Ne-ILE (aka ENTp), and was surprised at how much I can relate to that subtype. Such as: "Interested in new, unusual or poorly understood phenomena. Curious." and "Prefers to occupy himself with that which is interesting instead of that which brings a return". It's because they are both Extroverted Intuition, right? Actually, the only thing in the ILE-Ne subtype that I couldn't relate to is some of the social aspects.

Sources: LII subtypes - Wikisocion
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=ILE_subtypes
Apologies for wall of text.

 

[Starry]

I'm into Socionics a lot you could say.

Your type isn't entirely clear from the results but I wouldn't exclude EIE for you besides IEE because of how you view the Fi part and you did score a bit lower on it, as well. EIE-Ni more than EIE-Fe, maybe.

NF type is for sure though from how you come off here (besides the results themselves), a more distant third option would be IEI if EIE or IEE don't work enough.

Let me know if that helps.

As for [MENTION=18819]five sounds[/MENTION], NF again, can't say more but if the IEE self-typing works then sure these results are consistent with that.

Whoops existence...I forgot to thank you for this! Yah, there seemed to be a whole lotta conflict avoidance in the Fi description which was surprising to me as I personally see all of the judging functions as confrontational... It's the perceiving functions imo that don't wish to be bothered but as I type this I can't even say I understand enough about your system to know what is being weighed and separated out. I don't know shit about any of this is what I'm saying and to be completely honest...I may have some sort of unrecognized impairment that makes it impossible for me to comprehend socionics. Or I'm blocking my own understanding because I don't want to belong to any club that doesn't like ENFPs

^^but you know...that's five sound's problem and five sound's problem alone seeing how I'm EIE - Ni

Yes...I have been told this before and so *that* is familiar... EIE - Ni
Thank you so much again.

 

[erg]

Why?

If you can put it into words how he/she VI's as ESI-Se, it would be more helpful to see how reliable the VI is for the typing of magpie. IMO, too

Lemme first state this: I'm a big proponent of VI as tool in determining the type of a person, however, it should never be used solely for typing; it must be used in conjunction with other available tools such as questionnaires, tests, and process of elimination of the small groups (if you do not do this you even run the risk of typing people their conflictor, since conflictors sometimes look the same in a picture). Some people do not accept VI, others do. Types that do usually value or are strong in -Ne/+Ni (these are gamma's [especially the NTs), deltas [especially the NFs), EIE's and some SLEs), which is what is used to read people and perceive patterns.

The problem is putting the these perceptions into words. The way I see is this: it is very hard to explain why a cat is a cat and not a dog. You just know that the cat is a cat, and the dog is a dog. It is perhaps possible to develop a visual guide to differentiating the types, but I'm not sure how it could be done, given the hazy nature of the intuitions involved.

Magpie, I came across a picture of you (you had an ESI-Fi typing at the time) and I thought to myself-"she resembles more the patterns I've seen of ESI-Se than the Fi subtype". How did I arrive this conclusion? I mentally put together all the images of the people I've typed ESI-Se, both in real life and celebrities, then compared your pattern to this. You can do this yourself, being most likely ESI, you should have good -Ne/+Ni. Some ESI-Fi celebrities could be (there is almost never 100% certitude especially in the typing of celebrities, never until you are able to observe some intertype relations in action) Debra Winger and Diane Lane, and some ESI-Se celebrities could be Penelope Ann Miller and Bridget Fonda. This is in regard to VI; I've seen other evidence in your writing that points to this conclusion.

People shit on wikisocion all the time, and there are so many profiles?? Gulenko, Neskova, Filatova and etc. What am I supposed to look at exactly cause with Socionics there's so much reading material. I'm trying to narrow down the reading list cause I know I'll do extensive research afterwards anyways. I haven't seen the temperaments been talked about with socionics, any trusted links?

Socionics has much of the same problems that plague MBTI, namely too many differing opinions and innaccurate information. But this is also a good thing because all the information is freely available for everyone to test and make up their minds on. I managed to get a good hold of Socionics because I have the inherent ability to cut through and arrive at truth, but I'm aware not everyone is able to do this. Once I did this, I worked my way up from the the bottom (or perhaps just fitting the pieces of the puzzle as I went along-- like building a castle from the middle) to develop my own understand of everything. If you need something to start off of, I'd say Gulenko's descriptions of the types and the subtypes are good. A brief description of the temperaments can be found at wikisocion. The wikipedia article on socionics is also a good place to start. There used to be more good quality resources for Socionics, like for example socionics.us , but they seem to be on an extinction event.

[MENTION=32384]Taibreah[/MENTION], here is an example of information that doesn't seem very accurate (or at least I've never liked them -- I think it's because mine doesn't fit, perhaps others are better. Doesn't surprise me due to the amount of mistypes, who knows who they used as example when they wrote about LIE-Ni. I'm also not the run-of-the-mill LIE-Ni); Meged and Ovcharov's subtype descriptions. I taught myself using Gulenko's, which although much shorter, they are IMO to the point and contain much less innacurate information. Perhaps I should write my own subtype descriptions. Regardless, from the analysis you have made, it is more likely that you are LII-Ne than LII-Ti. I developed my own rules for this: LII-Ti has a flair of ST about them, while LII-Ne has a flair of NF about them. It is possible to go much deeper than this on the subtypes differences, but let's leave it at that for now.

[MENTION=10082]Starry[/MENTION] I didn't check your results throughly enough, it is very well true as existence says that EIE is a very likely option (more than ILE). You score high on the Ti-Fe axis, with a good amount of Fi in there (which should be low in the case of ILE since it's their PoLR), with high in both Ne and Ni (demonstrative and creative of EIE respectively).

 

[Taibreah]

[MENTION=32384]Taibreah[/MENTION], here is an example of information that doesn't seem very accurate (or at least I've never liked them -- I think it's because mine doesn't fit, perhaps others are better. Doesn't surprise me due to the amount of mistypes, who knows who they used as example when they wrote about LIE-Ni. I'm also not the run-of-the-mill LIE-Ni); Meged and Ovcharov's subtype descriptions. I taught myself using Gulenko's, which although much shorter, they are IMO to the point and contain much less inaccurate information. Perhaps I should write my own subtype descriptions. Regardless, from the analysis you have made, it is more likely that you are LII-Ne than LII-Ti. I developed my own rules for this: LII-Ti has a flair of ST about them, while LII-Ne has a flair of NF about them. It is possible to go much deeper than this on the subtypes differences, but let's leave it at that for now.

Thanks for your input. I think I am fairly confident with being the LII-Ne type as it does relate to me more. And, now that you mentioned LII-Ne has a NF flair about them makes me relieved to know that my NF identifiers are not being ignored. You also mentioned about portrait analysis of another member to come to a conclusion about their type. I was curious about this, so I looked at the portraits from this link and compared to pictures of myself, and I have that sort of lack of expression going on, and no tension in the cheeks for LII \ INTj (portrait #516). I don't have a picture of myself on this site, and don't really want to upload one, but I've looked at the various other types, and the only other one that is somewhat similar in expression was for IEI \ INFp, but something about the eyes doesn't match up for me, they're more brighter/open(?). But, I think I will stick with LII-Ne.

 

[existence]

People shit on wikisocion all the time, and there are so many profiles?? Gulenko, Neskova, Filatova and etc. What am I supposed to look at exactly cause with Socionics there's so much reading material. I'm trying to narrow down the reading list cause I know I'll do extensive research afterwards anyways. I haven't seen the temperaments been talked about with socionics, any trusted links?

Wikisocion has a lot of real socionics material (translated) on there, don't see why people shit on it.

Did my tip on Ti vs Ni not help at all?

I read the wikisocion that compared Ti-LII and Ne-LII, and from the information provided there I find myself relating more to the Ne subtype than the Ti subtype. If LII were the case for me that would make me LII-Ne?

Here are excerpts from the wikisocion page that I relate/don't relate to.

Ne-LII
I relate to this:
-Able to analyze specific topics in great depth. (Maybe not in great depth)

(...)

I'm not like this:
-May be a good speaker and lecturer capable of briefly and clearly conveying the material to his listeners.

(...)

Ti-LII
I'm not like this:
-Is well-versed in systems, schemes, classifications and structures. Identifies the main components and cuts off anything that is of secondary nature.
-Very straightforward in his behavior, lacks in flexibility and diplomacy in his relations. Fairly stable in his feelings and affections.

(...)

And, now that you mentioned LII-Ne has a NF flair about them makes me relieved to know that my NF identifiers are not being ignored.

This makes me consider the EII option that I mentioned for you before even more strongly - you did not relate to the Ti parts as much in the LII descriptions based on this. Check out EII-Ne.

Whoops existence...I forgot to thank you for this! Yah, there seemed to be a whole lotta conflict avoidance in the Fi description which was surprising to me as I personally see all of the judging functions as confrontational... It's the perceiving functions imo that don't wish to be bothered but as I type this I can't even say I understand enough about your system to know what is being weighed and separated out. I don't know shit about any of this is what I'm saying and to be completely honest...I may have some sort of unrecognized impairment that makes it impossible for me to comprehend socionics. Or I'm blocking my own understanding because I don't want to belong to any club that doesn't like ENFPs

^^but you know...that's five sound's problem and five sound's problem alone seeing how I'm EIE - Ni

Yes...I have been told this before and so *that* is familiar... EIE - Ni
Thank you so much again.

No problem. As I said EIE-Ni is an option for you but the IEE and IEI options can't be excluded just based on the test results.

Lemme first state this: I'm a big proponent of VI as tool in determining the type of a person, however, it should never be used solely for typing; it must be used in conjunction with other available tools such as questionnaires, tests, and process of elimination of the small groups (if you do not do this you even run the risk of typing people their conflictor, since conflictors sometimes look the same in a picture). Some people do not accept VI, others do. Types that do usually value or are strong in -Ne/+Ni (these are gamma's [especially the NTs), deltas [especially the NFs), EIE's and some SLEs), which is what is used to read people and perceive patterns.

The problem is putting the these perceptions into words. The way I see is this: it is very hard to explain why a cat is a cat and not a dog. You just know that the cat is a cat, and the dog is a dog. It is perhaps possible to develop a visual guide to differentiating the types, but I'm not sure how it could be done, given the hazy nature of the intuitions involved.

It's best when the perceptions can be put into words. E.g. the word for what expression is being displayed in the face/eyes, either momentarily or habitually (this often will not be strictly type related actually but there can be some very interesting correlations) or whatever other facial features are picked out (definitely related less to type than expressions, IMO).

And I think it can and should be explained why a cat is a cat and not a dog, too. I'm the same way with VI, if it cannot be explained, or at least the distinct factors picked out (even if not properly verbalized for the time being), then treat it more warily.

Also. An example of how a couple of photos are often insufficient for doing VI: I showed some photos of a person I know to a guy who's very into VI and claims he has a high accuracy level. Well he typed the person the superego/conflictor of the actual type. I managed (with some difficulty...) to make him point out the main factor he was relying on. Turned out he misread the expression on the face and associated that misread one with an expression that he found typical for that type that's the superego of this person's actual type.

Doing VI IRL (or even a video where the typee is being comfortable and natural enough) is a lot better than a couple of photos but I think that's obvious anyway.

Magpie, I came across a picture of you (you had an ESI-Fi typing at the time) and I thought to myself-"she resembles more the patterns I've seen of ESI-Se than the Fi subtype". How did I arrive this conclusion? I mentally put together all the images of the people I've typed ESI-Se, both in real life and celebrities, then compared your pattern to this. You can do this yourself, being most likely ESI, you should have good -Ne/+Ni. Some ESI-Fi celebrities could be (there is almost never 100% certitude especially in the typing of celebrities, never until you are able to observe some intertype relations in action) Debra Winger and Diane Lane, and some ESI-Se celebrities could be Penelope Ann Miller and Bridget Fonda. This is in regard to VI; I've seen other evidence in your writing that points to this conclusion.

So how many ESI-Se's have you seen so far to build this pattern recognition? And were they originally typed ESI-Se independently of the VI factors you were using here?

I find it hard to imagine any ESI scoring so high on Ne questions.

This is the other thing with VI - if it shows discrepancy with evidence about the cognitive attitude of the person, it has to be reconciled before it can be relied on to any degree whatsoever.

I won't even comment on those +- ideas.

There used to be more good quality resources for Socionics, like for example socionics.us , but they seem to be on an extinction event.

Socionics in the West

 

[Taibreah]

[MENTION=26684]existence[/MENTION] I took your advice and compared against how I related with the EII-Ne. So, it seems to be that I have more in common with EII-Ne than I don't. I'm not supposed to be identifying with every aspect of it though, right? I feel like I'm trying to narrow down the "Not like this" parts to as few as possible.

Ne-INFj (Ne-EII)
Description by V. Meged and A. Ovcharov

I relate to this:
-The intuitive subtype is emotional, composed, and firm. (I'm not that emotional, but things like music move me to emotions)
-Shows cordiality, goodwill, and friendliness toward people who are in his favor.
-Likes to advise, to mentor, to educate others but only within his circle.
-Possesses figurative and imaginative thinking and creative abilities, can discuss various imagery, symbols, dreams (100% this!)
-Serious and fastidious, prefers to hold himself with some reserve and subtlety.
-Seeks to understand the essence of various subjects and phenomena
-Takes on many tasks barely completing them on time. (Not too many)
-Very curious, loves to read and to contemplate. He is constantly evaluating everything. (Everything!)
-Feels unsatisfied and frustrated with work that is monotonous and routine. Strives for self-cultivation.
-Distrustful, requires sufficient evidence to become convinced of the verity of his partner's statements.
-Impressionable and emotionally sensitive. (I don't think I'm that emotionally sensitive, but I'm also not insensitive)
-Does not forgive betrayal and treachery; in such cases may irreversibly put an end to the relationship
-Shows an interest in the objective side of affairs if he has a desire to become competent in pragmatic activities, in which case makes himself learn about procedures and regulations.
-Prone to doubt, somewhat indecisive and diffident.
-Receives compliments in the presence of others with confusion and distrust. (Because they often times come off as insincere and forced)

I'm not like this:
-Sensitive, vulnerable, uncertain and erratic (Uncertain, yes)
-Dresses simply, adhering to classical styles, often conservatively. (I dress simply, but not classical styles, etc...)
-Poorly tolerates loneliness, needs attention of people who are close with him.
-Very fond of small children; though sometimes for educational purposes he is strict and uncompromising in their treatment.
-At times advocates for harsh measures and punishments.
-Tries to please others by performing a variety of services for them or giving presents, by being generous and unselfish.
-Has a keen sense of responsibility for others.

Description by Victor Gulenko
Feels people very well. Immediately feels who has similar views and opinions to his and who doesn't. Enjoys spending time in a small circle of like-minded people, discussing novelties in art and human sciences. Frequently appears somewhat unsure in himself and scattered. Gravitates towards social and humanitarian work, but can also work in service jobs. Realizes himself well in medicine and teaching. Able to reconcile those in a dispute and to mitigate intense situations. Creates a pleasant atmosphere in conversation and in his house. Dresses with taste, not seldom follows fashion.

Well, I don't identify all that much with Gulenko's description here. The only things I slightly can relate to is getting a general feel about people and appearing somewhat unsure of myself and scattered.

Edit:
I'll just edit this part in. Not sure if it will make much of a difference, but I re-answered a few questions from the original questionnaire that OP posted. Ne, Fe, Se, and Si didn't change, and Fi and Te only changed by one to two points. Ti and Ne switched places. I think this is more accurate now. I don't know where that would place me at Socionics. But since both Intuitions are at first and second, it makes me think it's the EII that existence mentioned, or ILE. Now, it looks like this: Ne > Ni > Ti=Fe > Fi=Te > Si > Se

Totals:

A Ne=15
B Ni=14
C Se=0
D Si=2
E Te=10
F Ti=13
G Fe=13
H Fi=10

 

[Starry]

[MENTION=10082]Starry[/MENTION] I didn't check your results throughly enough, it is very well true as existence says that EIE is a very likely option (more than ILE). You score high on the Ti-Fe axis, with a good amount of Fi in there (which should be low in the case of ILE since it's their PoLR), with high in both Ne and Ni (demonstrative and creative of EIE respectively).

Whoops erg...having been in two different headspaces at the time...I think I unintentionally created the impression that existence's explanation and typing of me made sense while yours did not...and that is just not the case. Please know that neither of you are making any sense to me whatsoever... (haha I'm kidding)

No, two things...

I'm pretty sure I have scored as your system's ENTP equivalent before. It wasn't by way of a more straightforward test like the one you linked me to...but iirc it was at least a test that members thought produced accurate results. Likewise, I was clearly wrong with regards to EIE. I admit that the descriptions I read for both the Ni and Fe subtypes seemed quite short and crappy...still, I did not relate to either of them. I most often type as your INFJ equivalent...and do relate somewhat well I guess to that description...but I'm going to retake the test you provided me and see what happens.

I have all these questions in my mind that I can't find the words for <-and no, I have no idea why I just wrote that. What I'm truly wanting to say here is how much I appreciate your knowledge, time and desire to help me figure this out. Thank you so much erg

 

[Bush]

People shit on wikisocion all the time, and there are so many profiles?? Gulenko, Neskova, Filatova and etc. What am I supposed to look at exactly cause with Socionics there's so much reading material. I'm trying to narrow down the reading list cause I know I'll do extensive research afterwards anyways. I haven't seen the temperaments been talked about with socionics, any trusted links?

I'm a fan of the "Wikisocion [type] composite" articles. (It's odd that, when you click a link for a type on Wikisocion, the Wikisocion composite link is buried in the middle of the list.) See also the links to the Wikisocion description of the IM elements.

Wikisocion ILI composite - Wikisocion

Introverted intuition - Wikisocion

 

[existence]

[MENTION=26684]existence[/MENTION] I took your advice and compared against how I related with the EII-Ne. So, it seems to be that I have more in common with EII-Ne than I don't. I'm not supposed to be identifying with every aspect of it though, right? I feel like I'm trying to narrow down the "Not like this" parts to as few as possible.

No, of course not every word has to be true but there should be a general trend in the description (of information processing aspects, not of stereotype traits) that you should see and identify with if you are that type. I do think you related to more of the important things in that EII description than in the LII ones. Anyway, I see you are still considering ILE, well, my impression of you is more of an introvert, but sure, feel free to check out all these options to decide correctly in the end. I hope I helped a bit. Good luck

 

[Taibreah]

No, of course not every word has to be true but there should be a general trend in the description (of information processing aspects, not of stereotype traits) that you should see and identify with if you are that type. I do think you related to more of the important things in that EII description than in the LII ones. Anyway, I see you are still considering ILE, well, my impression of you is more of an introvert, but sure, feel free to check out all these options to decide correctly in the end. I hope I helped a bit. Good luck

Thanks for your input on all of this. It's been very helpful. I've read a bit more on ILE and have ruled that out because, yes, I'm not an extrovert. Not even close. Heh. I just thought it was interesting that I also was able to relate to their Ne. I will go with EII-Ne since I was able to relate more to it than the LII-Ne in the end. And, now I'm going to take a step back from all the questioning. Thanks again for your help and others help, too.

Edit:
Great. Now that I'm that reading about Ni-IEI, it sounds so much like me. But so does the Ne-EII. I won't even post the comparisons, because almost all of Ni-IEI was relatable. *sigh* I've been through LII to EII and now IEI. Why is this happening to me?! Okay. I think I'm done now.