Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

Ramble Mumble Anything goes, but please make an effort to stay positive and keep it socionics related.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 18/03/2010, 03:53 AM
Viscera's Avatar
Viscera Viscera is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8
Default Tell Me My Type

I want to do a fun experiment. I really don’t know what type I am and I am wondering if anyone here can help me.

I am a heterosexual white male who is a bachelor. I have had a few intimate relationships, but nothing serious to this point. I have had jobs on and off and take advantage of every opportunity to not be working, just so long as I can pay my rent and live by myself. I have lived on my own or with roommates for the past six years. I prefer a solitary lifestyle and tend to avoid people as much as possible simply because I am not interested in what other people are doing, and can’t relate to the average person beyond mere small-talk or maybe the occasional awkward situation. I think that everyone is pretty much the same, but that subtle differences in upbringing in physical disposition make people pursue lies and cling to ‘dreams’ which hold them back in their personal development. I am aware that this is just as much true for me as it is anyone else, if not more.

I consider consciousness very important, yet at the same time I don’t think I am ready to dive into the rigorous self-discipline that it takes to excel in consciousness studies.

I am axiomatic, yet flexible in my thinking. I think that a blend of the two is important though I can’t precisely explain what I mean by that. I was never an outstanding student in school because I did not care about the lessons and did not like interacting with the other students. I was very timid and shy as a child. Because of this I missed as much school as possible growing up, and was recognized only as a talented and creative artist who knew a lot about “mad war shit”. Somehow I managed to go to college and receive my bachelor’s degree. It surprised me as I grew older, into my twenties, that I was actually kind of smart, despite my poor performance in grade school. I think that I more ‘have my act together’ than am smarter than most people. As far as I am concerned, having one’s act together is one of the most valuable components of intelligence. It seems to me that many suffer intellectually/academically because they are emotionally traumatized in some way and can’t simply ‘stop and think’. Many people also push themselves too hard, and live very cutthroat lives. Otherwise everyone processes information pretty much the same way, though they have personalities and physical traits that may guide them toward different fields/occupations.

I am known as a very pleasant person to be around, though I keep as much of a distance from people as possible. I avoid alienating myself though, so when I NEED to be around people, or I feel a person would be offended if I shunned them, I try to interact in a pleasant way. I don’t typically like to hurt the feelings of others and only contemplate(wrongly) doing so when they have hurt my own feelings.

I am very interested in knowing myself and am a believer in the notion of past lives, gods and alternate dimensions. I believe in such things because I have had ‘spiritual’experiences which seem to indicate that such things exist. For this reason I would say that I am drawn inward and am a highly spiritual person. I keep track of my dreams and am interested in dream interpretation.

I dislike skeptics and skepticism. I feel this way because I have overcome skepticism in myself and have comprehended it as ultimately rooted in insecurity and, at worst a self-righteous disrespect for the intelligence and honesty of one’s fellow man. I understand it is important to examine facts and come to a logical conclusion, but I would never approach the unknown as a self-identified “skeptic”. I also dislike self-proclaimed "atheists". This sort of person is despicable to me.

I think that that paints a pretty clear picture of me. I suppose I am just a normal guy who is trying to figure things out. Most people consider me very normal.

Last edited by Viscera; 18/03/2010 at 03:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 18/03/2010, 05:15 AM
RSV3's Avatar
RSV3 RSV3 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 550
Default

Possibly IXI.
__________________
Sociotype.com

Increased expression of one function (1) suppresses the opposing intradichotomy function and (2) suppresses the opposing intrablock function (and vise versa).
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 18/03/2010, 07:17 AM
Kanerou's Avatar
Kanerou Kanerou is offline
Omnomnom
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,367
Default

I don't see a lot here that comes across as particularly indicative of type. You sound pretty Ethical to me, though. Is there more that you could tell us?
__________________
http://www.formspring.me/ryeneastraelis Ask away. Naturally, I reserve the right to ignore or delete questions.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 18/03/2010, 07:38 AM
Viscera's Avatar
Viscera Viscera is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanerou View Post
I don't see a lot here that comes across as particularly indicative of type. You sound pretty Ethical to me, though. Is there more that you could tell us?
I think that I provided a pretty comprehensive description of myself, though I understand that my description may be missing something. Can you help me find what that is? Maybe if you ask a question that will help you determine my preferences?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 18/03/2010, 09:04 AM
stanprollyright's Avatar
stanprollyright stanprollyright is offline
The Looks
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 369
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSV3 View Post
Possibly IXI.
Agreed. I'm leaning a bit more toward IEI.
__________________
So this one time me an' my bes' frien' Stan, we went to a church service. That preacher was talkin' 'bout hell. So Stan leans over to me an' he says, "I bet hell is like a PoLR hit every day."

An' I says, "Stan, you prolly right."
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 19/03/2010, 04:26 AM
mihai_m mihai_m is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 327
Default

I think you're an ENTp, and btw, I relate to some things you said, especially that part with scepticism. It was also proven by personal experience that gods exist and done some magic years back (18-19 y.o.). Indeed, if such things were told to me by someone else I'd not probably believe them as indisputable still, I'd take them into consideration - I think. The reality is that the vast majority of people who declare that they experimented the supernatural is a deluded bunch. In any case, I'm far from what would call himself a sceptic, and btw, people who boasted with that ware far away from my favourites in my experience, it's some sort of a hubris that makes their less complicated.
---

About the typing, it was apparent to me that you're an Logical one since your first words, but then it confirmed to me. Many "Socionics" people have a lot of prejudices, one of them is associating anyone interested in spirituality with INFp or INFj/ENFp. While among those types one would find a lot of believers, that's still a prejudice - it uses to weight more than it deserves.

It is clear to me that you're an Logical Irrational, and more than that, it appears that you're Intuitive (many things, including your interests) but more than that very . One peculiarity is the fact that you repeated "because" for six times in that not so extremely long self-descriptions, which tells a lot about you. The ones who understand what Fi PoLR (Point of Least Resistance, in this case Ti-Creative) means, they understand what it has to do with asking for/offering a reason for anything.

Maybe this is a gibberish for you as you're not accustomed to the functions yet, I presume, although it's not recommended (or at least I'm among the ones thinking this) to type by functions, this was more for the accustomed ones to understand what I'm talking about.

One more thing that points, imo, for a Logical type (and possibly Ti even) is the fact that when asked for more about you, you replied asking for something specific, like in "more what and what for?".
---

Are you lazy sometimes, and were you often told that you don't make your bed or clean the table, or things like that?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 19/03/2010, 04:59 AM
Kanerou's Avatar
Kanerou Kanerou is offline
Omnomnom
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mihai_m View Post
Many "Socionics" people have a lot of prejudices, one of them is associating anyone interested in spirituality with INFp or INFj/ENFp. While among those types one would find a lot of believers, that's still a prejudice - it uses to weight more than it deserves.
I think "spirituality" is a broad, vague term and needs to be defined more closely. I could see the possibility for Ni types being more interested in the "unseen", as it were; but experience with the spiritual realm is not the domain of any one type, same as adherence to religion.
__________________
http://www.formspring.me/ryeneastraelis Ask away. Naturally, I reserve the right to ignore or delete questions.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 19/03/2010, 08:45 AM
mihai_m mihai_m is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanerou View Post
I think "spirituality" is a broad, vague term and needs to be defined more closely. I could see the possibility for Ni types being more interested in the "unseen", as it were; but experience with the spiritual realm is not the domain of any one type, same as adherence to religion.
I agree with you, there are many ways, for example some people declare themselves "spiritual" but they're only following some trends.

Why I wrote about this is because he was typed as Ni for two times without being able to see any indication myself for that, other than this spirituality. The guy seems to get there based on some logical conclusions, that's one strong reason of mine to recall people this aspect. Ni types actually "feel" (as in intuition) that there's "something more", but IMO this is a gross misjudgement for Viscera, considering that he struggled to point out the opposite, that objective reasons drove him there.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 19/03/2010, 08:55 AM
Viscera's Avatar
Viscera Viscera is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mihai_m View Post
Are you lazy sometimes,
I can be very lazy and small messes accumulate around my home, especially when I am living alone or with someone who isn't bothered by that kind of thing. For example, I have had a large aluminum ladder leaned against a rafter in my apartment. I used it to change the light bulbs, but left it and it has been there for at least four months. It is blocking the cabinet where I keep my broom, so I haven't swept since.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mihai_m View Post
and were you often told that you don't make your bed or clean the table, or things like that?
Yes, I was berated while living under someone else's roof during my adolescence. No one was bothered much by it when I was younger than that because of my living situation, but when I switched households it caused serious problems for me.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 20/03/2010, 01:40 AM
ENTroP ENTroP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 112
Default

A blatant disrespect for skepticism points towards ethical, not logical. IEI is my guess, too. Although, I'm torn between IEI and SEI... The artist part, and the shyness, it fits... I'm gonna amend my guess to SEI.

Last edited by ENTroP; 20/03/2010 at 01:43 AM. Reason: comma xD, and second thoughts.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 20/03/2010, 01:54 AM
mihai_m mihai_m is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ENTroP View Post
A blatant disrespect for skepticism points towards ethical, not logical.
What about a logical conclusion, not a disrespect out of nothing? With your phrase, in addition to typing him as ethical based on it, you imply something more, that he is some sort of blind believer.
It's perfectly normal to disrespect something you concluded throughout your experience that it is worth nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 20/03/2010, 02:03 AM
ENTroP ENTroP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mihai_m View Post
What about a logical conclusion, not a disrespect out of nothing? With your phrase, in addition to typing him as ethical based on it, you imply something more, that he is some sort of blind believer.
It's perfectly normal to disrespect something you concluded throughout your experience that it is worth nothing.
Disrespect for that which has brought the world so much cannot exist on a logical basis. Skepticism is the core of the scientific method, and the only thing that keeps one from accepting anything and everything, based on somebody elses testimony. Also, disliking and finding "despicable" an entire group of people, based on something as vague and common as atheism also implies a nonlogic mediated process. I would never say that I find all theists despicable, as that which I find despicable has to do with actions, not belief systems. I have plenty of theist and atheist friends, and cannot fathom labelling an entire segment of a populace "despicable" on that basis alone. I attribute this, partially, to being L and not E. I analyze the person, not by group or past experience with similar people, but on an individual basis, which is more rational and less emotional. Hence, I type him as an Ethical not a Logical.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 20/03/2010, 02:11 AM
Kanerou's Avatar
Kanerou Kanerou is offline
Omnomnom
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ENTroP View Post
I have plenty of theist and atheist friends, and cannot fathom labelling an entire segment of a populace "despicable" on that basis alone. I attribute this, partially, to being L and not E.
I wonder if that isn't more Ne than Logical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ENTroP View Post
I analyze the person, not by group or past experience with similar people, but on an individual basis, which is more rational and less emotional.
Potentially some Democratic in there, too.
__________________
http://www.formspring.me/ryeneastraelis Ask away. Naturally, I reserve the right to ignore or delete questions.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 20/03/2010, 02:16 AM
ENTroP ENTroP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanerou View Post
I wonder if that isn't more Ne than Logical.
Potentially some Democratic in there, too.
Interesting thought! What do you mean by Democratic though? Politically, I would consider myself Libertarian I don't have much faith in our current "forced choice" political setup here in the States lol
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 20/03/2010, 02:24 AM
Kanerou's Avatar
Kanerou Kanerou is offline
Omnomnom
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ENTroP View Post
Interesting thought! What do you mean by Democratic though? Politically, I would consider myself Libertarian I don't have much faith in our current "forced choice" political setup here in the States lol
I'm talking about the Aristocratic/Democratic dichotomy in Socionics. I haven't looked into it too much, but here's a description below. Hopefully it's accurate enough. >.>

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikisocion

Aristocrats

  1. Inclined to perceive and define themselves, and others, through groups they belong to; however, such groups are perceived and defined by the Aristocrats themselves, not necessarily accepting those groupings as defined by others or by social conventions.
  2. Their initial attitude to another person is influenced by their attitude to the group they see the person as belonging to.
  3. Tend to attribute common qualities to members of their circles of contacts, and define such circles by those same qualities.
  4. Inclined to use expressions that generalize group features.
Example: feeling energized by identification with a group, as in a team within a company, sports team, and the like; and seeing others foremost through the prism of the other teams they belong to.

Democrats

  1. Perceive and define themselves, and others, primarily through individual/personal qualities: interesting, pleasant, unpleasant, good-looking, etc, not in connection to any group they may belong to.
  2. Form their relationships/attitudes toward other persons based on the latter's own individual characteristics, not with base on their relationships to groups of any kind, nor on their relationships to representatives of such groups.
  3. Not inclined to perceive their acquaintances as representatives of a certain "circle of contacts" that supposedly possesses qualities inherent to people of that circle.
  4. Not inclined to use expressions that generalize group features.
Example: an individual building up his circle of personal connections, within an organization, that totally bypassses or ignores the organization's formal structure, but not with that circle being perceived as any kind of group or unit by any of the persons involved.
Here's the original link, for those who want to wade through the theoretical musings. http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p..._and_democracy
__________________
http://www.formspring.me/ryeneastraelis Ask away. Naturally, I reserve the right to ignore or delete questions.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 20/03/2010, 02:25 AM
ENTroP ENTroP is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 112
Default

Ah. Thank you very much
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 20/03/2010, 02:29 AM
Kanerou's Avatar
Kanerou Kanerou is offline
Omnomnom
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,367
Default

You're welcome. BTW, Alpha/Gamma is Democratic, and Beta/Delta is Aristocratic.

As for Viscera's type, I could see NF; however, I'm holding off on which one until I see more information.
__________________
http://www.formspring.me/ryeneastraelis Ask away. Naturally, I reserve the right to ignore or delete questions.

Last edited by Kanerou; 20/03/2010 at 02:29 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 20/03/2010, 04:44 AM
Viscera's Avatar
Viscera Viscera is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ENTroP View Post
A blatant disrespect for skepticism points towards ethical, not logical. IEI is my guess, too. Although, I'm torn between IEI and SEI... The artist part, and the shyness, it fits... I'm gonna amend my guess to SEI.
I don't have a problem with people who can think critically/investigate for themselves, I have a problem with people who call themselves "skeptics". When I say this I am referring to the modern day "skeptic" who is a collection of abominable traits. These people act like know-it-alls and go around treating everyone like they are stupid, unwittingly shutting themselves out some of the best things in life simply because they refuse to accept anything beyond their narrow "scientific" world view(which is based off of dusty old textbooks and a petrified ego). Skeptics typically offer their own theories to explain 'miraculous'/supernatural things, not real proof, therefore wasting everyone's time.

A person with a skeptical attitude is more of an egotistical person and from my experience these skeptics become this way because of their past traumas.

Again, I am referring to the prevailing use of the term "Skeptic".

Last edited by Viscera; 20/03/2010 at 04:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 20/03/2010, 05:05 AM
Kanerou's Avatar
Kanerou Kanerou is offline
Omnomnom
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viscera View Post
I don't have a problem with people who can think critically/investigate for themselves, I have a problem with people who call themselves "skeptics". When I say this I am referring to the modern day "skeptic" who is a collection of abominable traits. These people act like know-it-alls and go around treating everyone like they are stupid, unwittingly shutting themselves out some of the best things in life simply because they refuse to accept anything beyond their narrow "scientific" world view(which is based off of dusty old textbooks and a petrified ego). Skeptics typically offer their own theories to explain 'miraculous'/supernatural things, not real proof, therefore wasting everyone's time.

A person with a skeptical attitude is more of an egotistical person and from my experience these skeptics become this way because of their past traumas.

Again, I am referring to the prevailing use of the term "Skeptic".
So basically, someone who refuses to consider that there might be more out there than what they can see/hear/touch?
__________________
http://www.formspring.me/ryeneastraelis Ask away. Naturally, I reserve the right to ignore or delete questions.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 20/03/2010, 06:02 AM
Viscera's Avatar
Viscera Viscera is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanerou View Post
So basically, someone who refuses to consider that there might be more out there than what they can see/hear/touch?
Yeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 SOCIONICS.COM