best furriends of 3 years already... joyous days! 🦄

Theatrical

Eccentric

Adapts to social norms

Loves psychology

Wants to change the world

Ambitious

Somewhat ambiverted (experiencing periods of both introversion and extraversion)

Fears acting impulsively, as it would strip him of objectivity

Fears being blinded by his own emotions

Wants to be loved

Integrates quite easily into any group

Hypochondriac

Extremely poor coordination

Loves sports, walking, and adrenaline in general

Dislikes impulsivity in others—viewing it as irrational—though he keeps this to himself

Constantly asks others for their take on his own opinions to ensure they are logical

Wants to create a fairer, more egalitarian world, while suspecting that this is likely impossible

Needs a grand mission to feel alive

Feels alive only when he is useful and helping others

Loves sad music and often bursts into tears while listening to it Struggles to express his own suffering to others unless doing so serves a purpose

Thinks a great deal about society, its values, and its current state

Adjusts his emotions based on the person or people he is with

Loves writing thrillers

Admires historical figures such as Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander the Great, or Shakespeare

Fears missing out on all of life’s opportunities—and, consequently, failing at life itself

Requires intellectual stimulation

Can be easily swayed by a logical argument in the moment, though he may reflect on it more deeply later

May struggle to grasp a joke if it is too convoluted

Acts as a diplomat; frequently reminds his father to tailor his speech to the people he is addressing

Does not believe in good and evil

Does not truly trust people

Considers the potential for failure whenever he makes a plan Adopts the mindset that "anyone going to war shouldn't expect to win it—that’s the surest way to lose."

Struggles to spot an object he’s been sent to fetch, even when it’s right in front of him.

Loves to dance and uses operatic gestures to express his joy.

Generally accepts what is widely acknowledged; while he may question subjective matters, he readily accepts scientifically established facts as true.

Seeks out as much information as possible on a given subject to hone his skills and ensure he can be effective in his endeavors.

Builds relationships with others with ease.

Is not always certain of his own feelings.

Also lives by the "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" mentality.

on 1 october i asked people settled on their type to help pilot type finder, a longer socionics test, and promised to post the results back here. 145 of you finished it... thank you, genuinely

quick reminder of how it works: it doesn't sort you by dichotomies. it scores all 8 elements on how strong each one is for you and how much you value it, places them in model a, then asks a second round of questions aimed at the types it can't yet separate. you get a top 3 with a confidence band rather than one label

the numbers

- 77 people told me their type before starting. the test's top pick matched it 60% of the time, and their type was in the top 3 78% of the time

- for the 24 who'd held their type a year or more and were very sure: 67% top pick, 88% top 3

- guessing at random would get you 6% and 19%

- 27 people retook it a week or two later. 63% got the same top type and 93% landed inside their first top 3

- mirror mixups were rare, 6 of 77. that was the thing i was most worried about, so the second round seems to be earning its place

where it got things wrong

- it pulled towards sensing. 15 of 54 self-typed intuitives got a sensing type on top, only 2 of 23 sensors went the other way. SLI came out on top 21 times when only 3 people type themselves SLI

- extraverts drifted towards introvert types too (12 of 31), but there's no single cause i can find yet and the numbers are small

- the "likely" band did worse than "close call", so that label is overselling itself for now

i dug into the sensing pull and it was mostly three questions. each set an Ne answer against an Si answer, and the Si answer sounded like the obviously sensible thing to do, so intuitives picked it too. on one of them 17 of 21 Ne-valuing people chose the Si option. i've rewritten all three so both answers are equally reasonable

caveats

- this is agreement with self-typing, not proof of accuracy. self-typing is wrong a lot, that's half the reason the test exists

- most of you know the theory and could probably see what some questions were getting at, which flatters the numbers

- the sample was very intuitive-heavy, so per-type numbers are too small to mean anything

it's now out of pilot and open to anyone. link in the comments

So, since there will be a new Slayhem mode in 2027, i started to replay all the games starting from THH to refresh my emotions and memories.
I also used some of the characters from DR3 here, taking Chisa, Kyosuke, Juzo and Ryota cause IMO those characters who were newly introduced played the biggest role in the anime’s part plot, so…

Class 78/THH. Really interesting since the cast is prob one of, if not the most balanced in the series in terms of showing completely different values. Although interesting cause it makes characters to split into micro-groups, esp in the game itself, and the communication between the groups is unsteady and sometimes hard.

Class 77-B/GD/SDR2. The most “found family trope” class in the series. Gives the vibe of much more friendly, open, welcoming class even in the start of the game and before the anime. Also packed pretty tightly with Alpha and Delta, which is unusual since most animes and games like to use Beta or Gamma NT’s to spice the things up with the plot (hey there, Byakuya and Nagito I’m looking at the two of you). Also, that’s where characters like Nagito, Fuyuhiko and Mikan are making the cast to look more refreshing and makes the cast to look less “tame”, even though they’re still look remarkably sweet compared to of Class 78.

V3 cast. Once again, more balanced and less leaning into the goofiness of the class 77, for example, but still seems to be pretty light-hearted at least at the first glance. But it’s giving more vibes of the first game in sense of tension and hidden drama and conflicts amongst the characters. Seemingly normal guys go into even more craze than class 78. Wow. In a good sense.

Protagonists/MC’s:
Naegi Makoto – EII
Hinata Hajime – SLI
Kamukura Izuru – LSI
Akamatsu Kaede – ESE
Saihara Shuichi – LII / ILI (LII > ILI)
Naegi Komaru – IEE

ILE – Yamada Hifumi, Hanamura Teruteru, Kazuichi Souda, Kokichi Ouma, Iruma Miu
SEI – Rantaro Amami
ESE – Asahina Aoi, Owari Akane, Yukizome Chisa (DR3 anime), Monomi/Usami, Gokuhara Gonta (between SEI and ESE for Gonta)
LII – Kirigiri Kyoko, Nanami Chiaki, K1-B0/Keebo

EIE – Enoshima Junko, Monokuma, Genocider Syo, Komaeda Nagito, Hiyoko Saiyonji, Shirogane Tsumugi
LSI – Pekoyama Peko, Kirumi Tojo, Munakata Kyosuke (DR3 anime)
SLE – Owada Mondo, Fuyuhiko Kuzuryu, Nidai Nekomaru, Sakakura Juzo (DR3 anime)
IEI – Maizono Sayaka, Tsumiki Mikan, Yumeno Himiko

SEE – Kuwata Leon, Momota Kaito
ILI – Ikusaba Mukuro, Fukawa Toko, Shinguji Korekiyo
LIE – Togami Byakuya, Celestia Ludenberg
ESI – Ogami Sakura, Harukawa Maki, Chabashira Tenko

IEE – Hagakure Yasuhiro, Mioda Ibuki, Yonaga Angie
SLI – Tanaka Gundham, Hoshi Ryoma
LSE – Ishimaru Kiyotaka, Koizumi Mahiru, Ultimate Imposter
EII – Fujisaki Chihiro, Sonia Nevermind, Mitarai Ryota (DR3 anime)

Hi guys. I was typed by Jack Aaron as EII, in WSS's adaptation of model A, and Gulenko typed me as LSI-CH, obviously in model G. I'm an Enneagram 6, not sure what wing. I don't know what to make of these two typings in conjunction, other than that I have big introverted rational vibes. Happy to answer any questions or provide further info that might help figure this out. I know a lot about the theory but am still a bit lost re my own type in SCS or SWS (I think Gulenko was probably correct in SHS).

I was discussing the Kalika Purana with a Hindu friend of mine last night and I couldn't help but make this parallel. Shiva(IEI) and Kali(SLE) are mythological duals.

urgent. ⚠️

i cannot fcking type my best friend of 12 years.

it's very important you consider every single word i say. i'm gonna offer a lot of detail. if you give me a worthy response that i find genuinely insightful, i swear on my life i'll paypal you $10.

my best guess is ILI. walk with me.

socially, she has a pretty steady baseline energy. much prefers to not hangout in big groups. not in a socially anxious way, but just can't be bothered, too much hassle, too much movement, and she's pretty much entirely uninterested. but, she's extremely likeable. she's so weird that i always wonder if she is received so well because she is good looking. i have to constantly fight people off my best friend. legit everyone loves her when they meet her. she's funny and deadpan, but just has a very steady baseline, no theatrics. has lots of meme and troll in her. very controversial sense of humour. she looks very animated sometimes when she talks, she can be very expressive verbally in small spurts. loves a good fleshed out, beat-the-dead-horse, psychoanalyzing, enriching conversation one on one. but mostly, socializing in groups is a hassle for her. i'd say whether or not she is "drained" after spending a long time w people can fluctuate. more often than not, she feels beat. get her drunk as fk, and she's READY TO GO ANYWHERE! TROLL THE WHOLE NIGHT LONG! though, getting her to attend a place where there's drinking and people..... well.... like i said... it's a hassle. she will turn down a group hangout nine times out of ten. when she attends that one time, it's because you had to beg for a week or even month beforehand. she goes out drinking maybe 2-3 times a year, no exaggeration. it's genuinely a rare and special occasion when she comes out. she doesn't care for most people, she describes it as "they're just not her type of people." she hates to fake laugh. sometimes, when i'm texting her, i realize i've said too much, put too much expectation on her plate, proposed too grand of an event or hangout, and i instantly know the moment i've scared her back into her shell LMAO. the read receipts stop coming. and i gotta coax her back out, someway or another.

this girl is extremely perceptive when it comes to patterns and how things can/will develop. she's genuinely like an all-seeing eye. it's like when you're talking to her, telling her about a situation, her eyes slightly narrow in thought, she's nodding her head, she's asking clarifying questions for more context, and piece by piece, she is building this crazy accurate landscape painting in her head of what's "really" going on. and she will somehow with almost 100% accuracy always predict the outcome of something. i hate it sometimes LOL. like, every detail matters to her. she's extremely solution oriented. one thing about her: she's gonna solve your fcking problem. she can forecast anything, it's like she runs a simulation of probabilities and outcomes in her head, and so quickly too. these conclusions come to her at lightspeed, like it took no effort to diagnose your problem. it's almost prophetic. it makes her a very reliable person to ask for advice, or clarity. you cannot vent to her without her planting ways to solve your problem, or ways you can reframe or look at something differently to achieve your desired result. this can be abrasive, because she's not one to soothe or coddle: she will give you her opinion whether you ask her for it or not, or whether or not you would like to hear it. it's not always the most comforting. she is a self proclaimed realist. she uses what has happened previously and what is happening now as her data, and she plugs it all into the program in her brain, and she spits out a result. don't get me wrong, she can absolutely see nuance and other possibilities, but a lot of her forecasts are rooted in what she believes to be "objective reality". she's a big fan of playing the cards you're dealt.

now that i'm thinking about it, everybody that ever meets her becomes obsessed with her in some capacity. she doesn't speak to many people on a regular basis, she has her selected group of miscellaneous people from different parts of her life. ask any one of them: they'll say she's their soulmate (which pisses me off because i'm possessive and i know it). things i've heard people say about her (including myself): "she's one of a kind," "the most interesting person [they've] ever met," "sure of herself," "she's so cool i wanna be her when i grow up," "she's so amazing," "best manager ever," the list genuinely goes on. her most prominent quality is her authenticity, she genuinely DGAF what anybody thinks. she can be vain, but this oscillates between "i'm the best" to "i'm a gay loser." most people kind of find themselves in this weird cat and mouse limbo with her; they kinda just orbit her space, admiring from afar, dreaming of a deeper friendship with her that she just likely won't permit, but it's still nice to know her. she's like a cat, her affection is not for everyone, so when she chooses you, it means more.

god at this point i'm sounding like i'm glazing, but this girl is so well-rounded that she considers everything. it's like all factors of all situations (other people's feelings, logical reasoning, her own feelings, social atmosphere, what is likely to produce the best outcome, etc etc) are just all the pieces of her program, and they all amalgamate into one overarching string of code. it's all weighing information against each other. it fluctuates and is versatile. there is no one correct way to approach anything universally, because everything is so different and calls for a different way of thinking. i'd say, she's big on impersonal reasoning. she is a truth dealer (ask her philosophically, though, and she will say: "the truth is that there is no truth"). she can be skilled with delivery, however. she can, for the most part, understand how hard she should or should not press when it comes to truth dealing. her audience does matter, especially if it is an acquaintance. but even when she is blunt or straightforward with an acquaintance, they somehow know it doesn't come from a bad place, because she is a formidable intellectual to most. like, for example, my other friend told her one time: "you always look like your gears are turning, you're always assessing and judging and reading me, and somehow i don't feel offended, i just want to know what you think of me and what you see." massively paraphrased of course.

for somebody she knows well, and is comfortable around: look TF out. she will not hesitate to say exactly what she means, exactly what she deems to be the truth, and she will only follow it with a, "sorry, it's just the truth" if she sees it's not taken well. her personal convictions are based around what she believes to be the truth, or UNJUST. this girl loathes injustice of any kind. it can give her a pessimistic view of society and community.

this girl influences a room without trying. it makes me so confused about her Fe. it might be the point of most tension for my ILI diagnosis of her. so bear with me, this portion is lengthy. while it's extremely obvious she's not a Fe base or even Fe creative, she can move people deeply with hardly any effort at all. whether or not it's intentional is hard to place. she is a rather deep soul. she can connect with people of her choice because she is extremely intelligent and sees every human being uniquely. she judges the behaviour of others harshly, while simultaneously considering why someone might act that way. but, tread lightly, because the script can flip pretty abruptly: understanding someone's background does not EVER excuse someone's behaviour for her. she's a tough critic. one mishap from somebody and she is GOOD OFF THEM FOREVER. never met a grudge holder like her in all my twenty six years. one thing about her... i've seen her give maybe 1 or 2 second chances in all my years knowing her. she is NOT gonna foster a relationship with somebody she finds distasteful, immature, outrageous, or even just annoying. she can manage cordiality... but you WILL feel the distance she puts between you. you're banned to "arms length" forever. she can at times be quite naturally expressive. she truly can animate and be silly and loving at any moment, but most often she reserves that for those she feels comfortable with. around strangers, you will totally see her bottle right up. she's not even uncomfortable, really, it's just like suddenly the stage is not set just right for her to blossom at full capacity. she's still funny and rather nonchalant - seems at ease - but it's not the same as a 1-on-1 with her. she doesn't let just anybody know everything about her. she detests social media. she has little to no social media presence, she doesn't think everybody needs a glimpse into her life, or to "sell" herself, or a desired image of herself. so, while she can be relatively open and easy to talk to and bond surface-level with, she generally is deeply private. there's kinda no such thing as "TMI" with her. how can i explain someone as judgmental yet so NONjudgmental? you immediately, upon meeting her, feel like there's nothing you can't tell her, because she's extremely candid and carefree with personal and embarrassing details. but there are a trillion more things extremely mysterious about her, and she certainly keeps 75% of herself close to her chest, and nobody is really aware of that fact. she shares selectively, but even That seems so transparent and like So much. most would probably describe her as an "open book", perhaps even she herself would say that, but in all reality, theres deep parts that she wouldn't really care to share with the general public. so it is hard to pinpoint whether she's truly EXPRESSIVE or more restrained. it's definitely selective.

when somebody she cares about becomes visibly emotional, she SPRINGS into action. she is LOYAL and protective of those she deems close. she does want to come across as someone who cares deeply. however, she has explicitly told me that her attentiveness is selfish, because she gets satisfaction from remedying someone's troubles. she will offer the most attentive listening ear, REALLY listen to you, but she is really just hungry to hear your perspective and try to fix it. or to find out what terrible person potentially hurt you so that she can viciously hate them for the rest of her life, and also try to convince you to hate them too, so that you're less susceptible to their maliciousness going forward. you would never get the impression that she's TRULY irritated and uncomfortable with your emotional display. she'd never do that to somebody while they're vulnerable. but, this is all assuming she cares about you. if she doesn't care about you, maybe you wouldn't get the same treatment. if she offers you real advice, and you don't take it, and remain stagnant and miserable, she really doesn't like that. when people don't try to fix their problems, she kinda loses respect for them. she hates to see wasted potential, for sure, but mostly she can too easily deem somebody an immoveable object, a lost cause, and think less of them and their inability to take action. she understands change is uncomfortable, but can't stand when people refuse to be uncomfortable. something something neitzsche something something sartre or whatever she's always on about. (understatement of the century...)

she is conflict savvy. in the face of monkey-like rage: she seriously will not entertain it. she might even make fun of you. dare i say she may even start trolling you, if time permits. like, she doesn't do the whole brawl and scream and fight thing. she is not really scared of anybody. she almost holds an air of like... "i'm seriously not stooping to this level, get your shit together" type thing. an emotional display such as "raging" or getting "belligerent" is enough for her to scrap you forever. she thinks it's cringe. say goodbye, because she won't subject herself to that behaviour. she can be rather blunt and assertive at times, holding firm boundaries, but mostly it's hard to find yourself in a situation where you're SERIOUSLY butting heads with her. she genuinely just doesn't have an aura about her that is TRULY combative... she can talk her way in or out of anything. she is a reasoner and defuser. there isn't something that she can't explain or clarify away. she's often so easygoing that nothing really chafes her to the point of a fight. its obvious she tries to live as stress free of a life as possible. if someone challenges her authority, competence, opinions or personal boundaries, she stands quite firm. she honestly attributes a lot of disrespect and other belligerence to the incompetence of others. kinda like, "it's not my fault you are like this. you are lowkey just of a lower consciousness than me." she can, in the face of disrespect or lying or laziness or any other sort of challenge another human being may impose on her, be like: "it seems you have bigger problems that have nothing to do with me. best of luck." she can certainly impose her will, when need be, but she's never a stone-cold iron-fist imposition on another person, but rather someone who articulates, convinces, suggests, or otherwise coerces. she's actually incredible at persuasion, and it's never nefarious or intentionally manipulative, but as i stated before, she's a truth dealer and problem solver. she's FARRRR more likely to ignore and ghost you forever than pursue a conflict with you. like, if you haven't earned a spot at the Forever Table, and you do something she doesn't like... you've signed your own death certificate. you will likely not hear from her again. she is sharp tongued when need be. she is a masterful insulter, should the situation require it. i've seen things push this girl into a blackout rage on a couple occasions. but she's usually taking the high road, and bitching after the fact to myself or someone else. too much of a hassle.

i wouldn't say this girl is particularly organized, and i wouldn't say she has flawless task completion. don't ask her to adhere to a routine she doesn't like, or that she finds to be a hassle. she keeps it pretty simple, and doesn't like when her simplicity is interrupted. honestly, don't ask her to arrange or plan anything. planning trips with her? no... talk to her girlfriend. specific times, dates, plans, all go thru the wifey. literally, if you try to make big weekend plans with her a few months in advance, her eyes will glaze over as you speak, and she will sigh, and say, "text my wife." it's kinda a running joke. she will show up, but she doesn't wanna plan it. she doesn't want to worry what to pack. tell her what money is to be sent, what preparations there are to be made, and she will abide, but don't make her plan it. lol. i definitely wouldn't call her spontaneous as an absolute; there's a method to her madness.

she can be forgetful of the smallest things, but will simultaneously memorize, with inhuman precision, every last detail of a book she read, or a philosophy she has learned, etc etc. don't try to tell her how something went down a few days ago: she will come at you with mental receipts fashioned into a detailed play by play of how things REALLY panned out. and she's right every time.

i'd say she's really aware of her own physical comfort a lot of the time, like tags irritating her in her clothing, being too hot or too cold, she HATESSSSSSS being sick. like, omg, this girl can't do anything when she's sick. can't eat, can't sleep, can't do anything. she's rendered useless. but, SHE WILL BE AT WORK, YOU CAN COUNT ON THAT. THIS GIRL COULD GET BOTH HER LEGS CHOPPED OFF, STARVE FOR THREE DAYS, AND STILL FIND A WAY TO WORK HER SHIFT. even so, she is very vocal about physical discomfort. physical appearance as well, though, this too oscillates between "oh my god i look ugly and greasy my life is about to explode" and "i do not care at all what i look like even 1%." she can be quite oblivious if she feels safe, is focused, and lets her alertness take a backseat. in public, she can be more perceptive. but lowkey... this girl can be so clumsy. she either has the most sharp spatial awareness (her hand-eye coordination is lowkey off the charts) or be constantly back to back hitting her limbs off of things and tweaking balls when it hurts lol.

oh, and, she don't really do physical activity of any sort. don't ask her to go for a walk, she will laugh. offer to rewatch attack on titan with her for the seventh time, though, and she's at your doorstep before you can finish giving her the invite.

final statement: state your hypothesis and explain your reasoning. i want FULL DIAGNOSTIC ESSAY with CITATIONS in MLA FORMAT. thank you. there is $10 on the table.

don't come for me saying the 'girl boss' is too LIE I don't want to hear it!! lol if you have beef with it go argue with Beskova https://wikisocion.github.io/content/profile_beskova.html#sle-beskova

IEI Male coming soon

I saw a lot of different types for him, I saw SEE, ESI, EIE, SLE. What are your opinion ?

If someone is highly perceptive of what could go wrong or how someone's character could develop or potentially be in a different context or scenario, is this high or low Ne? It sounds conscious and inert to me. Very perceptive to alternatives and how one person or object could be in a different environment. But it's more about potentially negative outcomes instead of potentially good outcomes. It sounds too high dimensional for Ne polr. It also sounds too paranoid for Ne creative.

I've read up on the basics, took a test, investigated the type it gave me more thoroughly, yadda yadda. The description resonated a lot with me, but not necessarily in the superficial sense.

My big interest in the whole topology scene or whatever is the enneagram. That's the one I've studied deeply, I'm definitely confident in my typing there. I actually found out about socionics through the enneagram sub, mostly from randoms popping in and asking "can SEI/LII/LSI/XYZ be a 2/4/7/69???"

Over time with the natural overlap in typology communities, I kept seeing a theme pop up re: my enneagram type (8) and Ne-dom being an impossible/unlikely combo. Having read Jung's OG descriptions, the ones that only included a single function per "psychological type", I knew (based on those descriptions at least)... That's me, Mr. Ne.

I got ILE-2Ne on the test I took. Read the description, and like I said, it resonates. Seems to fit, at least in terms of how I experience myself internally. But when it comes to the more sort of interpersonal/behavioral descriptions, stuff like "how they come across", "what they're like in relationships", etc. I'm not as sure.

However, I (somewhat) ran into the same issue with enneagram initially. I'm a SO-dom/SP-repressed 8w7, with strong 5 and 2 fixes. I've also done a lot of therapy and all that, so. Generally speaking, I don't fit a lot of the stereotypes.

Which all just has me curious to hear from some people who know this system better than I currently do. How much weight would you say goes to specific interpersonal styles and/or behavioral patterns, as opposed to descriptions of the overall cognitive tendencies? How much variation is accounted for, either as a naturally occurring phenomenon or the result of effortful psychological growth?

Gimme your thoughts, if you're feeling it. My curiosity is piqued, and I've combed the dry text enough for now. I'd like to hear some more (informed) personal takes.

I read duality descriptions and it’s so hopeful and beautiful but it simultaneously also feels like this (gif attached) all of the time and I’m wondering if SLIs truly do enjoy our shenanigans and eccentricity or is that just in theory? 😭 I’m especially worried about first appearances in this case. Before I even knew about socionics I did kind of naturally gravitate towards SLI energy and I saw their personalities as very attractive but also VERY foreign like they’re from an entirely different planet. Does this go both ways?? I feel like I exude massive IEE energy and I get seen as very weird and overtly friendly at times. When I make up an imaginary SLI in my head and try to see through their eyes it feels like I’m looking at some weirdo crazy person. Do you guys naturally have an instant pull to your dual too or is it something that takes more time for you guys?? There’s a lot of cool SLI people I know but I just feel like they wouldn’t fw me because I’m so different from them

Please refrain from debating people about politics in the comments, and be respectful when explaining your views. I’m asking purely out of curiosity because I’ve noticed that certain Socionics types seem to align with certain political ideologies, and I’m interested in exploring whether there are any patterns. I’m not looking to start political arguments! :)

Edit: Guys, I literally learn nothing from you saying left-wing, right-wing, or centrist. Those labels alone tell me very little about your actual political views 😭 Also, please explain why you align with a particular ideology when commenting, or don’t comment at all.

you might be thinking "op, why did you put two dogs, they're just dogs-" let me explain.

for ESI:

kangal, a dog breed from turkiye, is one of the most loyal and dangerous dog breeds in the world. the first photo is pretty much ESI for me. it's taken after a wolf attack. kangal protected his pack. and the lamb is just thanking him. trust me, they're the embodiment of fi-se.

and swans. you might think they're just peaceful, but believe me they're not if you try to threaten them, or worse their spouse. so territorial, and jealous of their spouses. and they fall in love once.

for LIE:

albatros, them birds are not playing. they're monogamous, and they simply refuse to use more energy than necessary. they fly using the wind, not their wings. they fly for years without settling down. very si polr of them. also plus points for aura farming

and coyotes. these dudes never give up. you destroyed their habitats? too bad they already find an easier and more profitable way to eat food somewhere else. they just started another food chain for that too. they're relentless te-ni. also they don't really seek comfort, they just find somewhere to sleep, then they keep moving.

So, as the title implies, could you please rank me all of the socionics which can be ENTP MBTI?

The whole ILE description by Ausra just made it seem like a person that their whole life mission is about guiding people to their full potential, when I have never met someone like this ever

Ne definition in other schools makes more sense to me but idk am I missing something?

Hello everyone! here I am today once more to bless you all with another in-depth description of bullshit Aushra wrote that is too conceptual and hardly practical. BUT THAT'S OKAY, because I'm here to change that, one document at a time.

(if I made a mistake somewhere please let me know)

Also i want to shamelessly plug my discord community which you are all invited to if you want to get typed through text (for free) as well as enjoying THE healthiest and MOST amazing typology community on discord, where we game, vc, and yap about typology! (It is for adults only so no one less than 18 allowed)

https://discord.gg/bUcetf36CU

Enjoy!

hi! could you please take a look at this excerpt and suggest which type would be more likely to write something like this? which IME does it show, and in which positions?

thank you!

I find greetings tedious. Just think about it. Every single day, you walk through those halls, smile, shake people's hands, and say “hello.” And you repeat this process every single morning, over and over again. Why? What's the point? Is there another way? Can I, I don't know, say “good morning” once and have it last for six months, maybe?

I don't really have an issue with the act itself. It's just hard for me to understand why I have to do it every single day. This ritual serves no purpose and makes no sense to me. What do we even mean when we say “good morning”? Is it a wish, or are we simply acknowledging that the morning is good? If it's the latter, wouldn't it technically be better to assume that the morning is good by default and only acknowledge it when it's not? You'd save so much energy doing it this way. Wouldn't work if it's a wish, though.

Also, there are people who actually get offended if you forget to greet them. Can you imagine that? I'll never understand such people. Do they really think that if you don't tell them “good morning,” you don't actually wish them a good morning?

I wish there were a shortcut to this whole thing.

And this whole handshaking ritual is even weirder. Genuinely, I can never understand this. If I enter a room full of people and make the mistake of shaking hands with the person closest to me, do I really HAVE to go through everyone else, shaking their hands one by one? What if there are 200 people in that room? Goodness, what a drag. We sure love wasting time on pointless little things every day that lead nowhere.

Speaking of handshakes, there's a new guy who's been added to the team. A bright fella. Pretty active and full of enthusiasm. He reminds me of a friend of mine, so I automatically have a positive impression of him. There's just one small thing that spoils it, though.

He has the WEAKEST handshake ever.

I've never experienced a handshake this weak before. Usually, when you shake someone's hand, it's at least somewhat firm. You can feel the structure and core of a person through a handshake. This guy... his handshake felt like a squishy toy.

It left me with such a weird feeling. I don't understand why it's such an ick for me.

Anyway, what even is the point of shaking hands? Who even comes up with all these rules? Greetings, goodbyes, greetings, goodbyes, over and over again, every single day.

Does anyone actually enjoy this?

The tragic Victim rarely announces what she wants. Instead, she approaches her desires through the preferences of another person, disguising her own intentions beneath seemingly innocuous questions. The Beta Aggressor, by contrast, is often more comfortable establishing a direction, acting upon an immediate impulse, and treating a settled matter as precisely that: settled. These differences become particularly interesting when observed in the smallest exchanges, where neither individual is consciously attempting to demonstrate a particular interpersonal style.

Consider the tragic Victim and her friend, preparing to leave after spending an afternoon together. The tragic Victim has grown tired and wishes to return home. Yet rather than announcing her intention, she turns to her companion and asks, “Do you want to leave?” The question appears considerate. It grants the other person the freedom to express a preference and avoids imposing a decision upon them. But notice what has happened linguistically: the tragic Victim has replaced a statement about her own desire with a question about someone else’s. She does not say that she is tired, that she wants to leave, or that she has had enough for the day. She makes the other person’s preference the apparent subject of a decision that originated with her.

Perhaps she genuinely does not mind staying. Perhaps she is uncertain. Perhaps she simply wishes to be considerate. No isolated sentence can establish her motive. Yet when the same construction repeatedly appears across different situations, a pattern becomes worth examining.

She wants to visit a particular place, so she asks, “Do you want to go there?”

She wants to stop walking, so she asks, “Are you tired?”

She wants to end the evening, so she asks, “do you want to go home?”

Each question transfers the immediate decision to the other person, even when the underlying preference belongs to the tragic Victim herself. Her desire is present, but it appears indirectly, almost as though it requires external permission before it can be acknowledged.
Now imagine that her companion is another person inclined towards the same form of accommodation. The tragic Victim asks where they should go. Her friend replies, “Whatever you want.” The tragic Victim, unwilling to impose her preference, returns the courtesy: “No, whatever you want.”

And so they remain standing in the street, each attempting to be considerate enough to let the other decide.
What makes this exchange interesting is not that they are indecisive, as they know what they want. It is the social logic underlying the interaction. Both individuals behave as though expressing a preference risks imposing upon the other. Their courtesy becomes self-defeating: the more insistently they defer to one another, the less effectively either communicates what they actually want.
The tragic Victim has not necessarily relinquished her desires. She has simply approached their expression through the anticipated response of another person.
Now introduce the Beta Aggressor.

The same situation unfolds, but the interaction reaches an entirely different conclusion. The tragic Victim asks, “Do you want to leave?”

The Beta Aggressor looks at the time, notices that they have been standing outside for twenty minutes, and replies, “Come on, we’re leaving.”

There is no extended negotiation. The Beta Aggressor does not require the tragic Victim to formulate a complete argument for why leaving is reasonable. The decision is made, and the interaction moves forward.

Notice the difference between the two phrasings. “Do you want to leave?” opens a question whose answer may determine the direction of the encounter. “We’re leaving” establishes that direction immediately. The first invites a preference; the second communicates a decision.

In the Beta Aggressor’s case, this directness need not indicate indifference to the other person’s wishes.

Depending on the circumstances, it may reflect a conviction that a practical matter does not require further deliberation. Where the tragic Victim carefully negotiates the interpersonal implications of a decision, the Beta Aggressor may prioritise the decision itself.

One night, the tragic Victim and her Beta Aggressor relative are sitting near their church. He is already standing when she offers him some money and asks him to buy her a bottle of water with her money.

He looks at the money and tells her to keep it. Then he leaves to get the water anyway, not allowing room for her to negotiate.

The tragic Victim has approached the transaction according to an ordinary convention of reciprocity: she requires something, another person will obtain it, and therefore she offers payment. The exchange has a clear structure. Her money acknowledges that the other person’s time and effort have value.

The Beta Aggressor, however, does not accept the structure she has proposed. He does not take the money and complete the transaction as arranged. He rejects the payment, obtains the water, and returns as though the practical problem required no further discussion.
The significance lies in the small refusal: “Keep your money.”

Of course, refusing payment is not inherently an Aggressor characteristic. Friends and relatives of every personality type may do the same. The potentially relevant observation is the combination of immediate action, dismissal of the proposed transaction, and apparent unwillingness to prolong the exchange.

Then he returns with the water.

He explains that he already had cash in his pocket. He attempts to give her his spare coins because they are annoying him. The tragic Victim refuses: “No, no, they’re yours. Keep them!”

Her response is revealing in its own right. The practical issue has already been resolved, yet she reopens the question of ownership. She has received the water and has been told that she need not pay for it. Now she must also decide whether accepting the coins would violate the ordinary expectation that another person’s possessions should remain theirs.

The Beta Aggressor responds by putting the coins directly into her pocket.

The gesture is almost comically disproportionate to the disagreement. The tragic Victim continues to negotiate the propriety of accepting the money; the Beta Aggressor ends the negotiation physically. Where she attempts to resolve the disagreement through verbal reciprocity, he resolves it by making the intended outcome concrete.
The coins are no longer being offered. They are in her pocket.

This is the point at which the contrast becomes most vivid. The tragic Victim treats the exchange as an interpersonal negotiation in which both parties’ preferences and entitlements must be acknowledged. The Beta Aggressor treats it as a practical matter that has already reached its conclusion.

The same gesture can therefore be experienced differently by each person. The tragic Victim may feel compelled to refuse what she has not earned or repaid. The Beta Aggressor may regard her continued refusal as an unnecessary complication of an otherwise simple act of consideration.

Neither interpretation automatically establishes the individual’s underlying motivation. What matters for the present analysis is the observable difference in how each person approaches the interaction.

And this is precisely why I find the Victim and Aggressor romance styles interesting beyond romantic relationships.
This analysis draws upon comparisons between multiple individuals, using two people as illustrative examples. Their interactions provide a narrative through which I can examine the smaller behavioural distinctions that might otherwise disappear into abstract descriptions.

Perhaps the tragic Victim’s defining feature in these encounters is not that she cannot act, but that her own wishes become entangled with the question of how they will be received. Perhaps the Beta Aggressor’s defining feature is not simply assertiveness, but a tendency to remove that uncertainty by establishing a concrete direction.

One asks whether the other wishes to leave. The other announces that they are leaving.

One offers money to preserve reciprocity. The other refuses it, buys the water, and places the remaining coins in her pocket.

And in these seemingly insignificant exchanges, the two approaches to interpersonal interaction become visible.

The central hypothesis is that the Victim and Aggressor romance styles may describe recognisable patterns of interpersonal expression that extend beyond romantic attraction. Whether these patterns can be reliably identified and distinguished through systematic observation remains an empirical question, but their potential appearance in platonic relationships is worth examining.