Munenori On Why He Is SEI

[Rubicon]

I've been thinking about starting a thread to kind of explain the whole string of thoughts that make me think this now, but, geez, it would be so so long.

i would be very interested. i've got a few of my own brewing on those two, Fe/Fi. they have been the hardest for me to pin down irl.

I would also be interested in hearing what led you to your SEI typing. (c: I can't promise to contribute much to the thread, but I will insert emoticons and various colourful whatnots at appropriate intervals to demonstrate my interest ... or I will desist from posting such nonsense to demonstrate my respect for you .... whichever you prefer.


But no pressure or anything.



Whenever you're ready.

[Wittmont]

Sacrilage! Emoticons are not nonsense! *gasp!*

[Ms. Kensington]

penguin... chick,..... eating... asian... popcorn????

O_o

[Rubicon]

Yeah, I'm with dbmmama, go for it dude

.

[JuJu]

yeah, it would be very interesting to read.

[munenori2]

Ok, I will. I'm sort of chatting about it with a few other people atm, so it might have to wait till tomorrow morning. This is something I've had on my mind for a while though. I'll spill the beans then and you can be the judge!

[Rubicon]

[Ezra]

I'm actually glad I didn't have to force him to make the change. SEI is a far more suitable typing for him, and I had a lot of trouble seeing him as an EII. So, full respect to him for that.

[Darkstar]

I would also be interested in hearing what led you to your SEI typing. (c: I can't promise to contribute much to the thread, but I will insert emoticons and various colourful whatnots at appropriate intervals to demonstrate my interest ... or I will desist from posting such nonsense to demonstrate my respect for you .... whichever you prefer.


But no pressure or anything.



Whenever you're ready.

I love that

[Rubicon]

I'm actually glad I didn't have to force him to make the change. SEI is a far more suitable typing for him, and I had a lot of trouble seeing him as an EII. So, full respect to him for that.

[Mediator Kam]

indeed.

[dbmmama]

indeed.

+1

[BurntOrange]

lol ty Jem

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Munenori has changed somewhat since I joined the forum. At first INFj fitted him well, I even recall him being somewhat philosophically inclined and like a "humanitarian" in his posts, which could be said to tie in with the NF club. I had no real reason to doubt his IJ temperament and didn't get lots of Fe impression from when I read his posts.

But lately his posts and his input seem to be different, like he's trying to show more Fe and trying to be more of an "S" type, and I don't know why. I'm not sure if an SEI typing has been "forced" upon him or if he is just being himself more, or maybe it's cause i've seen his posting for a little longer now.

What do you think Munenori?

[xyz]

Munenori has changed somewhat since I joined the forum. At first INFj fitted him well, I even recall him being somewhat philosophically inclined and like a "humanitarian" in his posts, which could be said to tie in with the NF club. I had no real reason to doubt his IJ temperament and didn't get lots of Fe impression from when I read his posts.

But lately his posts and his input seem to be different, like he's trying to show more Fe and trying to be more of an "S" type, and I don't know why. I'm not sure if an SEI typing has been "forced" upon him or if he is just being himself more, or maybe it's cause i've seen his posting for a little longer now.

What do you think Munenori?

I think it's because we're focusing too much on his behavior and not discussing his reasons for being a humanitarian, then switching to "sensor" attempts.

[Ezra]

You automatically assume force is a bad thing. There are different ways of forcing someone to do something, Jem.

[dbmmama]

You automatically assume force is a bad thing. There are different ways of forcing someone to do something, Jem.

but, what i don't like is when someone comes right out and says it the way you did as if it's your "right" to force anyone to do anything.

free choice, free will, man.

helping someone see what you see is one thing, but then it's up to them to decide for themselves.

[Rubicon]

You automatically assume force is a bad thing. There are different ways of forcing someone to do something, Jem.

Yeah - it's not so much the forcing as the Phaedrusical implication that your view of his type is undeniably correct ... when you've never even met the guy.

[dbmmama]

Yeah - it's not so much the forcing as the Phaedrusical implication that your view of his type is undeniably correct ... when you've never even met the guy.

that as well. without meeting people in person, what people write on here doesn't convey the "whole" of them. that was proved so fricken much when meeting blaze and bg. my guess is that 80% of the people here have their type wrong.

[munenori2]

First off, sorry I haven't given my whole spiel for why I'm thinking SEI yet. I sat down to write it yesterday and hammered out why I thought EII in the first place. Like I said, it's going to be pretty expansive, because what I'm trying to get down is basically what's been stewing in my head since April. Hopefully I can sit down and spew it all out by the end of today after I get some free time.

I'm trying really hard to make this good since I know the forum conception of my type seems to be pretty well ingrained by now and the only reason I haven't talked about this much sooner has a lot to do with the way people who change types often, or at all, tend to get grilled. So, basically, I've waited until I felt confident enough to really explain the reasoning that led me here.

Munenori has changed somewhat since I joined the forum. At first INFj fitted him well, I even recall him being somewhat philosophically inclined and like a "humanitarian" in his posts, which could be said to tie in with the NF club. I had no real reason to doubt his IJ temperament and didn't get lots of Fe impression from when I read his posts.

But lately his posts and his input seem to be different, like he's trying to show more Fe and trying to be more of an "S" type, and I don't know why. I'm not sure if an SEI typing has been "forced" upon him or if he is just being himself more, or maybe it's cause i've seen his posting for a little longer now.

What do you think Munenori?

SEI hasn't been forced on me at all. I've pretty much harbored doubts about my type for quite a while. Bit by bit and with some helpful insight from some bright people, it's made it easier to really step back and look at not just the way I behave, but what lies beneath it. A lot of it has been sifting through what's gone on in my life to see exactly how some of the things I considered relevant weren't as type-related as I thought.

I definitely agree that I've changed. If I had to characterize that change, for me this is the way I tend to be when I've started to come out of my shell with people and act naturally without trying to make an impression. More coming soon!

[Darkstar]

that as well. without meeting people in person, what people write on here doesn't convey the "whole" of them. that was proved so fricken much when meeting blaze and bg. my guess is that 80% of the people here have their type wrong.

Don't quit your day job

[BurntOrange]

I definitely agree that I've changed. If I had to characterize that change, for me this is the way I tend to be when I've started to come out of my shell with people and act naturally without trying to make an impression. More coming soon!

Man, I have to fight this all the time. I know how to act to appeal to anyone, but if I fall into the trap of going against just acting naturally I feel a lot less comfortable with myself.

that as well. without meeting people in person, what people write on here doesn't convey the "whole" of them. that was proved so fricken much when meeting blaze and bg. my guess is that 80% of the people here have their type wrong.

I've actually entertained this idea before, but in the end I dismissed it as unlikely. I mean, there are a lot of typings based on vague associations with other people, and I think this forum environment does have an increased susceptibility to this, as it's much harder to be right about these intuitions when just dealing with carefully chosen text and no non-verbal or spur of the moment communication.

Due to that, I have questioned whether a fallacy of circular logic where say we decide that everyone that's like 1 or 2 people are that type, but say they've mistyped themselves/been mistyped and so then we're actually typing a bunch of people of the wrong type because of that initial mistake that we can't see. All people like person X are type Y, and type Y is always like people X because they're all the same and typed that way. It also could happen where we use traits not socionics related to type someone, and therefore the definition of that type becomes trait X. Where person(s) X has trait Z and is type Y, so everyone with trait Z is type Y, and type Y has trait Z because everyone that is that type has it. The logic that lead to that typing paradigm needs to be right or else typing that way is forever based off that initial fallacy.

That said, I pretty quickly dismissed all that as very unlikely because when I considered an objective functional analysis of people without regard for their own typings or other peoples timings, it seemed to match a lot more often than not. Besides, that assumes an overwhelming incompetence in the forum when it comes to considering themselves and their relationships, and is contingent on everyone that has met IRL being completely wrong about what happened their too. IMO the data is easier to read as confirming that we're mostly on the right track than the wrong one at this point, at least to me.

So yeah, I understand where you're coming from but I can't really find any evidence for it. I'd probably randomly guess closer to 80/20 right than 80/20 wrong.

[Wittmont]

Yeah I am more along BurntOrange numbers, but definitely the forum is not perfectly typed so to speak.

[dbmmama]

Man, I have to fight this all the time. I know how to act to appeal to anyone, but if I fall into the trap of going against just acting naturally I feel a lot less comfortable with myself.



I've actually entertained this idea before, but in the end I dismissed it as unlikely. I mean, there are a lot of typings based on vague associations with other people, and I think this forum environment does have an increased susceptibility to this, as it's much harder to be right about these intuitions when just dealing with carefully chosen text and no non-verbal or spur of the moment communication.

Due to that, I have questioned whether a fallacy of circular logic where say we decide that everyone that's like 1 or 2 people are that type, but say they've mistyped themselves/been mistyped and so then we're actually typing a bunch of people of the wrong type because of that initial mistake that we can't see. All people like person X are type Y, and type Y is always like people X because they're all the same and typed that way. It also could happen where we use traits not socionics related to type someone, and therefore the definition of that type becomes trait X. Where person(s) X has trait Z and is type Y, so everyone with trait Z is type Y, and type Y has trait Z because everyone that is that type has it. The logic that lead to that typing paradigm needs to be right or else typing that way is forever based off that initial fallacy.

That said, I pretty quickly dismissed all that as very unlikely because when I considered an objective functional analysis of people without regard for their own typings or other peoples timings, it seemed to match a lot more often than not. Besides, that assumes an overwhelming incompetence in the forum when it comes to considering themselves and their relationships, and is contingent on everyone that has met IRL being completely wrong about what happened their too. IMO the data is easier to read as confirming that we're mostly on the right track than the wrong one at this point, at least to me.

So yeah, I understand where you're coming from but I can't really find any evidence for it. I'd probably randomly guess closer to 80/20 right than 80/20 wrong.

thanks, great to hear from another who has been thinking these thoughts too. it's kinda funny because i wish that there wasn't any interaction between people to figure out their type. that gets in the way. and yet, ironically, it's based on interactions. lol

[Ms. Kensington]

thanks, great to hear from another who has been thinking these thoughts too. it's kinda funny because i wish that there wasn't any interaction between people to figure out their type. that gets in the way. and yet, ironically, it's based on interactions. lol

very au contraire... i feel typing can sometimes only become apparent in interaction.

[dbmmama]

very au contraire... i feel typing only becomes apparent in interaction.

i didn't mean that it didn't. i just *wished* that it didn't.

[Ms. Kensington]

i didn't mean that it didn't. i just *wished* that it didn't.

just edited my strong statement on my own. But why do you wish that? i dont really see why behavior done under certain motivations would be any less valuable than those given under different motivations.

[dbmmama]

just edited my strong statement on my own. But why do you wish that? i dont really see why behavior done under certain motivations would be any less valuable than those given under different motivations.

again, a misunderstanding of meaning...lol.

i don't mean it's not valuable. i mean i have a very hard time knowing how to interact with other's "correctly." and because i'm SO aware of that, i lose any focus on anything else when interacting with someone. i lose all objectivity.

i am better at analyzing and understanding people when i don't interact with them, but observe from afar or near... i like being objective with others that way. but as soon as i personally "get in the mix" that objectivity flies out the window.

[Ms. Kensington]

again, a misunderstanding of meaning...lol.

i don't mean it's not valuable. i mean i have a very hard time knowing how to interact with other's "correctly." and because i'm SO aware of that, i lose any focus on anything else when interacting with someone. i lose all objectivity.

i am better at analyzing and understanding people when i don't interact with them, but observe from afar or near... i like being objective with others that way. but as soon as i personally "get in the mix" that objectivity flies out the window.

well i think i understood you, i'm just asking why your reaction, even if you feel it is not objective, would somehow misconstrue someone else's typing of you. Burnt orange btw is to me not talking about someone's modification of their own behavior, but of traits that are misinterpreted or too heartily attached to a certain type. If you mean only to say that you are not able to type others correctly when you are worrying about how to interact with them, or even that it creates an unpleasant or unsure feeling, then ok.

[dbmmama]

well i think i understood you, i'm just asking why your reaction, even if you feel it is not objective, would somehow misconstrue someone else's typing of you. Burnt orange btw is to me not talking about someone's modification of their own behavior, but of traits that are misinterpreted or too heartily attached to a certain type. If you mean only to say that you are not able to type others correctly when you are worrying about how to interact with them, or even that it creates an unpleasant or unsure feeling, then ok.

yes, the latter part.

[Ms. Kensington]

Pmed you dbm.

sorry munenori.. if someone can maybe split this off into a separate thread maybe they could do that.

[dbmmama]

Pmed you dbm.

sorry munenori.. if someone can maybe split this off into a separate thread maybe they could do that.

yeah, sorry. i guess i did it again.

[Ezra]

Hahahaha, you did it again!

[Joy]

I'm skeptical.

[Gilly]

Yeah...I thought it made a lot of sense off the bat, but I have been having second thoughts lately...Definitely ethical and Si valuing, though. Perhaps IEE-Fi is a possibility that should be considered.

[Joy]

Yeah...I thought it made a lot of sense off the bat, but I have been having second thoughts lately...Definitely ethical and Si valuing, though. Perhaps IEE-Fi is a possibility that should be considered.

I think so. He still reminds me a lot of my EII sister though. More so than any one else on the forum ever has.

[munenori2]

Alright, here goes. I'll warn you, this will probably be pretty lengthy! In order to really get to the heart of it, I guess I'll start with explaining how I came to think EII in the first place and work my way up from there. There are also some things to be said for the case for and against SEI, as well as some confounding personal history that I think has clouded a lot of how I’ve approached who I am as a person.


Arrival:

When I first came to socionics, it was through MBTT. I always seemed to test INFJ/INFP on that, though the first time I took it (which was back in about 6th or 7th grade) I came out as an ISFP. This stuff interested me, but I didn't really have a way to judge the results other than that they described my behavior somewhat well. This also led to a lot of naive assumptions about the functions when I wound up here in socionics, as I'll point out soon.

Naturally and quite simply, I expected to be the same type in socionics, though I heard somewhere about the p/j switch and took that to heart. As a result the only two types I investigated in the beginning was INFp and INFj. Of those, EII seemed a much better fit in a lot of ways, which I attribute mostly to being very Si/Ne focused. I also tended towards being an Ne subtype precisely because I didn’t see all that much Fi in myself, particularly in the way that all the descriptions of it seemed to involve a more judgmental attitude towards other people as well as a more constant perspective regarding the same. There are some qualifications about this that I’ll make shortly.

There were some initial doubts as to being EII, in case anyone thinks I was ever that steadfast in thinking that was my type. Flipping through the wiki and various other sources, a few things seemed off to me. The biggest thing was viewing myself as static rather than dynamic. Mostly this has to do with the startling lack of consistency I tend to exhibit. Now there can be cases made for this being an Ne trait maybe, but I don’t mean an appearance of external inconsistency (if I were making connections between things and thus looking like I was focusing on totally different things), but more like a complete and utter lack of internal consistency beyond what strikes me right then. Perhaps I’m mischaracterizing what static/dynamic means, but that way of describing myself always seemed at odd with what an IJ would typically be like I think.

That's all I have right now, but there are other things running through my mind also. The biggest issue is probably my reevaluation of the ego functions and how they would work on an internal level (what it's like to look through an Fi-base lens vs Ti, Ni, Si, etc) and how I relate to it all. I also recorded a bit of a conversation I was having last night, but I'm unsure the person I was having it with would want me to post it. It's basically about 25 minutes of my half of a conversation with them, but I think it could probably shed some light on a few things. I'll have to check with my confidant.

There's a lot more to what's been going on in my head. I just wanted to sort of prime the beginning of the conversation at this point.

[Wynch]

You should tell the "Why I like philosophy" and "Why I like learning languages" story too. Not to mention the "Me and my INTj twin brother" story.

[Mediator Kam]

increíble.

[munenori2]

You should tell the "Why I like philosophy" and "Why I like learning languages" story too. Not to mention the "Me and my INTj twin brother" story.

Oh yeah, I forgot about those. Good idea!

increíble.