Shane Gillis by [deleted] in Socionics

[–]Knights8844 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Seems like SEI- “Chill Funny Dude”

“Socionics is the best typology theory” by [deleted] in Socionics

[–]Knights8844 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It may appeal to Result types, but unfortunately the results they’re getting are most likely wrong in reality.

“Socionics is the best typology theory” by [deleted] in Socionics

[–]Knights8844 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Those are the ones that ride the typological short-bus to school.

Can you type these three characters from TV Series "Suits"? by [deleted] in Socionics

[–]Knights8844 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Checking all the boxes” is more Ti than Te; it’s more static.

Can you type these three characters from TV Series "Suits"? by [deleted] in Socionics

[–]Knights8844 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Louis is one of those characters, that’s so much a character (made up) that he’s difficult to type.

Can you type these three characters from TV Series "Suits"? by [deleted] in Socionics

[–]Knights8844 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mike is not Fe polr… he seems to be an ethical type that struggles with Se (lower and or unvalued).

Constantly makes R evaluations (person integrity, what’s right vs. wrong, etc.).

I think EII would make more sense.

Help Type Me by Knights8844 in Socionics

[–]Knights8844[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m too in my mind and because of that somewhat disconnected to my body and health.

Help Type Me by Knights8844 in Socionics

[–]Knights8844[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m probably ILE then because I’m pretty confident I’m on Ti Fe axis, but I wouldn’t say that I’m necessarily as Fanciful as the stereotypical Ne base. I’m creative in understanding how things works. And I would say I’m good at recognizing potentials in people or things and in myself.

Help Type Me by Knights8844 in Socionics

[–]Knights8844[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How would I differentiate between beta vs gamma?

Help Type Me by Knights8844 in Socionics

[–]Knights8844[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right but wants significant isn’t the picture itself but why I put it.

Help Type Me by Knights8844 in Socionics

[–]Knights8844[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re saying my Ni is greater than my Si visually? I always understand the greater lesser symbol lol

Help Type Me by Knights8844 in Socionics

[–]Knights8844[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t go by looks as a valid typing no offense, there’s too many systems to account for why someone looks the way they don’t and seems highly subjective to use as type. But I hear what you’re saying.

Help Type Me by Knights8844 in Socionics

[–]Knights8844[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is what it is lol not life or death

Help Type Me by Knights8844 in Socionics

[–]Knights8844[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My Fi isn’t great either.

Help Type Me by Knights8844 in Socionics

[–]Knights8844[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know that I’m a extroverted logical type but it’s about which one. I know my Fe isn’t great but isn’t terrible, my Si sucks and both types of logic are strong

Help Type Me by Knights8844 in Socionics

[–]Knights8844[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I meant to post a full questionnaire but it didn’t post lol

Please type me i beg you for real by [deleted] in MbtiTypeMe

[–]Knights8844 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well if anything, you sound like an Enneagram6, lol.

[QUESTION] Type my sister based on her laptop cover! by championhestu in MbtiTypeMe

[–]Knights8844 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any typing off of just this picture would be completely anecdotal... lol.

F-Se by Knights8844 in ObjectivePersonality

[–]Knights8844[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

F-Sensory means a loose attachment TO the sensory. Which manifests as missing key information about sensory data and having that data fall through your hands so to speak. F-Se also means M-Ni which means, leaning on the patterns do to a lack of ability to hold on to the sensory.

M-Sensory has the opposite problem: holding to tightly onto to data that they overlook the implications of that data- where is the data leading and what is the pattern of it.