Hello, some kind of NT checking in.

[HFY Enjoyer]

I've been busily getting acquainted with the idea behind Socionics for about a year, after knowing about MBTI for around three months. The system fascinates me, especially the parts where the good is taken with the bad.

I'm not sure on my type just yet. I know I am some kind of NT, Researcher. If I had to rank possible typing with the NTs, it'd be ENTp-Ti-N, ENTj-0-C, ILI-Te-D, and INTj-Ti-C.

* I'm also open to the possibility of being an LSE-Te-H or SLE-Ti-C, but I just don't think my sensory capabilities are that strong, despite having a desire to seem tough and masculine -- hypocritical given my deep disdain of gender roles, but hey.

* Similarly, I'm also open to the possibility of being an IEE-Ne-N or an EIE-Ni-C. However, I think my ethical capabilities are only slightly stronger than my sensory capabilities.

* Basically, I know I don't have an Si of higher dimensionality than 1.5D (I know, I know, half dimensions and all), I know I don't have an Se of lower dimensionality than 1.5D. I think I value Fi more than Fe. Typically, Socionics tests show that I'm about Ne > Ti == Te > Ni > Fe == Se > Fi > Si.

* Why I don't think I'm a LIE/ENTj -- I think the stereotype of ENTj being a mastermind CEO is stupid. It offends me on a visceral level. I also know my Ennegram is either 4w5 or 5w4. I also don't identify with the 'wannabe sportsman' type and I hate the outdoors, despite being a huge fan of nature documentaries and astrophysics. I also find the use of Te by most LIEs and to a lesser extent LSEs superficial and ultimately self-defeating. At least LSEs make their Te work for them, but goddamn that Ni-POLR. I personally envy everything else about the LSE except for that, but it's such a big shortcoming to my perspective it's straight-up a dealbreaker. But LIEs? Why? Too much Te, especially without the benefit of Si or Ni to guide it, is stupid and counterproductive. I'm glad I knew about Jack London and his incredible life before getting into Socionics, or I would have have put ENTj as the least likely possibility of my type, even below NFs. I also don't identify with the 'indifferent to aesthetics and art' stereotype. Art and beauty is very important to me. Also, the description of ESI/LIE duality makes me cringe and makes me wonder just what the hell ESIs see in LI. Of course, I feel that way about all NT duality descriptions; you have a parasite leeching off of their long-suffering SF saint of a dual, justifying it with their Big Brain. 'Jack the Exploiter' indeed. ST/NF duality descriptions are pretty cute and actually make me envious of the manly ST boyfriend, especially LSE/EII. NT/SF duality descriptions make me cringe with pity for the SF, though ESE/LII makes me cringe the least, with SEE/ILI a distant second place. I also dislike traveling unless there's a clear business or educational purpose to it, just going to see the world for its own sake doesn't appeal to me. And even beyond the CEO stereotype, I have a faint disdain for how LIEs don't actually seem to create the technology they exploit. Again, Jack London being typed as an LIE is the only reason why I don't reject the typing, even if I think that man's life was very, very sus at times.

* Why I don't think I'm ILI/INTp -- I am positive that I don't have Suggestive Se, and that my temperament is definitely not IP. I don't see myself as all that productive and driven (and I'm open to EP, EJ, and IJ in that order) but not to that extent. And as above, while I think Ni is the most awesome function to have, I think INTps (and INFps) use Ni for stupid purposes. Ni is what makes humans superior to God, and yet I get the impression that INTps are totally okay with just letting God boss them around, because they find it easier to adapt with Te than use Ni to outsmart God. Victim romance style to the extent that INTp takes it doesn't appeal to me. I read about SEE/ILI duality relations, and think: just what the hell do SEEs see in ILIs. I see what ILIs get out of the deal, they get a bold, energetic, supermodel manic pixie dream girl. I also have very strong socialist leanings, of the libertarian socialist leaning (basically, society should be set up to maximize the potential of every human being, by redistribution if need be). And I think ILIs take the libertarian part of libertarian socialist too seriously.

* Why I don't think I'm ILE/ENTp -- Honestly, this is what I'm closest to. Ne is consistently my strongest function, with Te reaching it now and again. I also think the use of Ti by ENTps/ESTps is the best way it can be used; it almost makes up for unvalued Ni in ENTps and low-dimensional Ni in SLEs. Damn that Fi-Polr, though. Low-dimensional Fi is pure hell. However, a few things seem off to me. For one, I think Fi is very important despite sucking at it. As someone who is very into coding with Large Language Models as a hobby, I personally think that Fi and Ti are the closest two functions in terms of practical use. Also, while I like luxury and the occasional hedonistic pursuit, I also find Si-Suggestive to be more than a bit humiliating. That said, I think SEIs are hot AF, though I also feel the same way about SEEs, ESEs, and ESIs.

* Why I don't think I'm LII/INTj -- One word: Se-Polr. This is not me at all. Now, granted, I detest the use of force against other humans, but nothing in life interesting will happen without Se. Se is what makes Ni worth anything. I also think evaluating everything through the lens of Ti is silly and self-defeating, even more than Te. The Logic of Relations is subject to change at any moment, and life doesn't give a damn how much effort you put into it. Do you think Mother Nature or Father Time or the Library of Babel shed a tear for all of the INTjs who wasted their lives trying to patch (or rather, ignore/rationalize away, because Ti-lead) holes in Newtonian mechanics when Quantum Mechanics/Special Relatively came out? No. The only way I'll consider being INTj is if I'm of the Creative subtype, or something with a little bit of Se and something to break up the rigidity of Ti. In contrast to ILIs, I think they emphasize the socialist part of libertarian socialist too much.

* My aspiration in life is to become the Ultimate Boyfriend for one very special lady. Or guy, but I like pretty much any kind of woman appearance wise, and I only like a certain subset of men (basically, either the super girly-guys or the super manly-men). Temperament and ethics are non-negotiable. I can overlook most any fault so long as she's open-minded about other people, has strong morals, isn't too attached to gender roles, can think for herself, and won't let me get away with my shit. Meaning, she will call me out immediately if I'm being stupid or mean or unfair or lazy or judgmental or slobbish and give me a chance to redeem myself, rather than just sweeping it under the rug. Oh, yes, and she can't be hierarchical or tribal. Which is... all SF women, which doesn't really narrow it down. I don't want to have any of my own children, but I don't mind raising someone else's kids from a previous relationship and/or adopting, so long as it's clear that from now on:I'm the daddy.

* I'm middle-aged, black, American Southern, and a huge nerd. Did a 6-year stint as a Navy Nuke, got out and got my degree, then proceeded to flip back and forth between various engineering and sales jobs until I'm at my current role -- designing and testing the BMS/PMS computer systems, power electronics, and electrical infrastructure of data centers. I'm mostly just biding my time so I can get enough OJT experience and savings to build my own Large Language Model in a 400GB of VRAM rig. A project in which I will also need my own house (never owned one, currently still rent) and well-defended, well-supported server room. Hobbies include artificial intelligence, futurism, science fiction literature and video games, alternate history, anthropology, cooking, biohacking, various Space Nerd drivel (even though I despise Elon Musk on a visceral level; damn parasite, stealing nerds' dreams), tabletop games like Dungeons and Dragons, creative writing, technical writing as far as that can be considered a hobby, philosophy, macroeconomics, architecture, and adult anime, in both senses. My favorite creators are Isaac Asimov, Garth Ennis, Mary Wollstonecraft, Tobey Fox, Jack London, Friedrich Nietzsche, and N. K. Jemisen.

* Oh yeah, the name. I have this weird mental dichotomy. Despite having extremely misanthropic tendencies at times, I am also a gigantic fan of the 'Humanity F*ck Yeah!' genre, even if it disappoints me at times by going way too far into the 'hewehhee murder monkeys dominate all of the aliens with our huge Beta-Quadra phalluses' themes. There is nothing that gets under my skin faster than stories that paint humanity as helpless weaklings as victims of a hostile universe and/or irredeemable toads who will never rise above our caveman origins so just submit to your inferior genes and blah de blah. I don't mind things getting dark and bleak and hopeless, I love Berserk and Shadowrun and Mass Effect and the Punisher Comics, but I hate it when the story starts whimpering. You might also not be surprised to learn that I am a transhumanist, that humanity should explicitly seek to uplift the smarter animals Uplift Saga-style, that there's nothing wrong with turning our civilization over to AI, and that the birth of the Machine God is not only nigh but it'll be the best thing that has ever happened to both humanity and our planet. That said, I can be extremely hateful and even sadistic to my species at times, taking pleasure in stories where the inferior humans suffer like WH40K and deconstructionist fanfiction of Harry Potter that shows human wizards as weak and worthless. This makes me extremely elitist at times in a way that disturbs even me, mostly because human inequality (especially those who paint it as natural, inescapable, or worst of all desirable) is so offensive to me.

[Distance]

I think you are EIE over IEE. You seem forced in creating a few travel roads that work preemptively, in visionary lights, rather than shake rattle and roll at anything new in a discovery process.

Ask yourself if you are relationship seeking by the lights of making you accepted and whole, that is Fi in LIE.

[HFY Enjoyer]

I think you are EIE over IEE. You seem forced in creating a few travel roads that work preemptively, in visionary lights, rather than shake rattle and roll at anything new in a discovery process.

That’s the only intelligent way to do things. You don’t know what life will throw at you, but you also can’t let yourself be victimized by it. I mentioned that I am middle-aged, and I am definitely seeing the consequences of aimless Ne/Ni users seeing entropy catch up with them and give them a reality check.

Also, I know for a fact I am not Ti-suggestive. Why let yourself be led by the one-eyed man leading the blind when you have your own two eyes? Life changes too much to make understanding, that is, the logic of relations worth anything in the long run. The only thing stupider than letting Ti rule your thought processes is just passively accepting someone else’s understanding of the world. I know it pisses off LSI/LIIs when I pick and choose what bits of logic I like from their explanation and shred what doesn’t stand up to Te scrutiny, but that’s their own problem.

Ask yourself if you are relationship seeking by the lights of making you accepted and whole, that is Fi in LIE.

Frankly, I don’t care much for that idea of wholeness. It seems codependent and parasitical. I disdain most of the NT duality descriptions for that reason; what are YOU bringing to the table, rather than asking the universe for a handout and begging for your other half? It’s one of the reasons why I despise gender roles. H. L. Mencken was dead-on about the idea of wholeness being an animals domestication scheme.

[Adam Strange]

@HFY Enjoyer, while reading your intro post, I got the impression of an IEI. Lots of intelligent introspection, lots of relating to many types of personalities. Seemingly good use of Ni.

Your writing style and many of your opinions are reminiscent of those of @Hot Scalding Gayser, who self-types as IEI.

Yes, IEIs can be excellent at science, since most basic science is Ti.

@Distance suggested that you might be EIE. While EIE, like IEI, is Beta NF, I didn't get much of an impression of the sheer drama that EIEs demonstrate. Still, I guess, it's a possibility, although, in my opinion, slight.

[CosmicCat]

Frankly, I don’t care much for that idea of wholeness. It seems codependent and parasitical. I disdain most of the NT duality descriptions for that reason; what are YOU bringing to the table, rather than asking the universe for a handout and begging for your other half? It’s one of the reasons why I despise gender roles. H. L. Mencken was dead-on about the idea of wholeness being an animals domestication scheme.

Sometimes I wonder if wholesomeness is a Tauri euphemism for codependency.

[HFY Enjoyer]

@HFY Enjoyer, while reading your intro post, I got the impression of an IEI. Lots of intelligent introspection, lots of relating to many types of personalities. Seemingly good use of Ni.

Your writing style and many of your opinions are reminiscent of those of @Hot Scalding Gayser, who self-types as IEI.

Yes, IEIs can be excellent at science, since most basic science is Ti.

@Distance suggested that you might be EIE. While EIE, like IEI, is Beta NF, I didn't get much of an impression of the sheer drama that EIEs demonstrate. Still, I guess, it's a possibility, although, in my opinion, slight.

Well.

I know for a fact I am not Te-POLR. I can accept Ti being higher dimensionality than Te, i.e. EII/ESI, or SLI/ILI, but Te is just way too important in my life and worldview for it to be Te-POLR. I disdain how most Te-leads use the function -- pragmatic to the point of superficial, i.e. self-defeating, which is why LSEs and LIEs seem to put all of their effort into applying current facts as they currently know it, and just taking it at face value. Doing it that way makes it impossible to use Te aside from climbing up the ranks of society as it is currently situated. There's a reason in my opinion why so many actual world-changing scientists are Te-Creatives, whether Isaac Newton (ILI), Charles Darwin (SLI), Sigmund Freud (SLI), or Niels Bohr (ILI). That doesn't mean that I devalue Te; I have a similar complaint about Ti -- rigid to the point of solipsistic, i.e. self-defeating. Which is, again, in my opinion why a disproportionate number of scientists are Ti-creative, whether Albert Einstein (ILE), Thomas Edison (SLE), or John Neumann (ILE). Even Carl Jung noticed this.

[Distance]

You seem to know your type.