# Sticky  Gamma Quadra - Hangout Thread



## TheBigT

FreeBeer said:


> Note: remember to talk with gammas about string theory and ghosts...


In the same thread of conversation? I don't see how they correlate.


----------



## LibertyPrime

TheBigT said:


> In the same thread of conversation? I don't see how they correlate.


It was a sudden idea, I was at work, so I made a note. I get a lot of ideas during the day and if I don't note them somewhere I forget. Kinda lost interest for this now o.o so fuck it, moving on.

 ideas and thoughts are fun to toy with? (yielding Reinin dichotomy)

Even if just for amusement, you can explain the ghost phenomenon through string theory. "Echoes of the past" wooohuuuhh *does creepy voice imitation*. Imo it would make for a great campfire ghost story


----------



## Inguz

FreeBeer said:


> It was a sudden idea, I was at work, so I made a note. I get a lot of ideas during the day and if I don't note them somewhere I forget. Kinda lost interest for this now o.o so fuck it, moving on.
> 
> ideas and thoughts are fun to toy with? (yielding Reinin dichotomy)


Hm... Tomte and alternate dimensions? Perhaps they can move between the two.


----------



## TheBigT

FreeBeer said:


> It was a sudden idea, I was at work, so I made a note. I get a lot of ideas during the day and if I don't note them somewhere I forget. Kinda lost interest for this now o.o so fuck it, moving on.
> 
> ideas and thoughts are fun to toy with? (yielding Reinin dichotomy)
> 
> Even if just for amusement, you can explain the ghost phenomenon through string theory. "Echoes of the past" wooohuuuhh *does creepy voice imitation*. *Imo it would make for a great campfire ghost story *


I guess ghosts from a different part of the 7tj dimension would be more interesting than the usual OMGz SKELLUTUMZ.


----------



## Immemorial

FreeBeer said:


> Note: remember to talk with gammas about string theory and ghosts...


I prefer vampires.


----------



## Abraxas

Svidrigailov said:


> I prefer vampires.


Sabbat or Camarilla?


----------



## Abraxas

FreeBeer said:


> It was a sudden idea, I was at work, so I made a note. I get a lot of ideas during the day and if I don't note them somewhere I forget. Kinda lost interest for this now o.o so fuck it, moving on.
> 
> ideas and thoughts are fun to toy with? (yielding Reinin dichotomy)
> 
> Even if just for amusement, you can explain the ghost phenomenon through string theory. "Echoes of the past" wooohuuuhh *does creepy voice imitation*. Imo it would make for a great campfire ghost story


I hate campfire ghost stories. I don't see why we can't just have sex and get it over with. After all, that's the whole point of going camping (unless you're a kid and your parents made you, or you're one of those naturephiles who just likes being in the woods, or you just want to get away and drop a few hits of acid).

If you want to have an interesting conversation over a campfire, let it be about an upcoming Shadowrun campaign or a Dungeons & Dragons campaign and we spend hours discussing our character concepts, or lost in nostalgia over how awesome my previous sessions were (since I'm always the DM and I always love being told how awesome my campaigns are, of course).


----------



## Immemorial

Abraxas said:


> Sabbat or Camarilla?


I haven't played that game myself, but I'd go Camarilla. I'm all for being in the shadows. Clan-wise... Gangrel. Although Malkavian dialogue seems to be hilarious.


----------



## Abraxas




----------



## Promethea

A very important message to all gammas:

Don't worry.
Bill Murray!


----------



## LibertyPrime

Abraxas said:


> Sabbat or Camarilla?


<.< Brujah, *spit...Sabat are worthless animals and the Camarilla, well you take what you can stomach..the fracking Venture...

8D either that or just Malkavian...you can't go wrong with Malkavians!


----------



## Abraxas

FreeBeer said:


> <.< Brujah, *spit...Sabat are worthless animals and the Camarilla, well you take what you can stomach..the fracking Venture...


Tremere master race reporting in.

... Yeah, well. You know. Someone has to take responsibility. Let the Ventrue have it if they want it.

I wouldn't be too quick to spit on the Sabbat. They're more complicated than you'd think...

Also, if you could assign a Sociotype to each of the Camrilla clan archetypes, what would it be? I'm having this discussion with one of my table-top gamer buddies.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Abraxas said:


> Tremere master race reporting in.
> 
> ... Yeah, well. You know. Someone has to take responsibility. Let the Ventrue have it if they want it.
> 
> I wouldn't be too quick to spit on the Sabbat. They're more complicated than you'd think...
> 
> Also, if you could assign a Sociotype to each of the Camrilla clan archetypes, what would it be? I'm having this discussion with one of my table-top gamer buddies.


*Clan Brujah (ESI, SEE, ILI, EII, IEE, LSI, SLE)* is imo a mix of Sps and NFs, NTjs (*beta - gamma - delta*). The high minded idealism and that hot blooded passion / impulsiveness. Ofc the mix has some NT in it due to some being more "True Brujah" (means logical and cold version, despite not directly descending from the original Brujah: Ilyes. Either way despite the stigma the clan suffers Brujah vampires (excluding the trash that dies early anyway) are philosopher kings, passionate, intelligent, idealistic individualists.

*Malkavians (IEI) *are crazy-prophetic and in my opinion Ne and Ni dominant types. Mostly NF and mostly INFJ - Ni-Fe due to the nature of their curse/power (*imo beta quadra*) They are also fun, unless you aren't Malkavian and happen to meet one or two when they are having a "bad day". Malkavians can have all manner of mental illness so if one has split personality XD where one is ENFj and the other ENTj....what are you gonna do? Case in point: Janette Voerman from bloodlines.

*The Venture (LSE-LIE-SLE)* are your stereotypical Sjs and Njs (*beta-gamma-delta*). I guess it depends on what kind of power & stability hungry J the vampire is. Could be ENFx or ESTj or anything of that sort in between imo. Only they would want to preserve the status quo so much.

*Clan Tremere (ILI, LII, IEI)* - imo mostly INTx, INFj is passable.  you probably know the clan better then I do. (*alpha-beta (questionable)-gamma*) 

*Gangrels(LSI-SLI)* can only be introverts and mostly SP imo, mostly ISTp. (delta) Gamma ISTj could also pass as one so maybe *gamma*.

*Clan Toreador(ESE-SEI-EIE-IEI)* - -.- oh these are xSFps, HOWEVER I resent stating this, BECAUSE I find them too hedonistic and self absorbed, also simply fuck it, I'll never make a character from this clan. <== for similar reasons I never make Blood Elf characters in warcraft. (orc or troll and for the horde lol) (*still considering ISFP as potential sociotype*) *They are clearly Alpha or beta only. xNFjs could make good toreadors*

*Nosferatu* - uhm...no idea. SP comes to mind. Considering everything SP seems the more reasonable choice. If you cnan stomach the packaging, a Nosferatu is highly skilled, intelligent and resourceful, very high value vampire. (*gamma-delta*)

[HR][/HR]

*Clan Tzimisce* - NTjs...also sick and twisted. Meet one? Run or kill it if you can, burn the nest....omg I'm going to throw up. (*gamma*) Imo only Ni-Te would twist reality to fit their own internal conceptions.

[HR][/HR]

>.< oh come on, they embrace being a vampire and lose themselves to the inner beast. there is no path of humanity there, to a brujah-minded player that is unacceptable. Simply put they are doing it wrong. Sabaat are trash 

*EDIT: XD FINISHED!*


----------



## Abraxas

@FreeBeer,

On another note, I love your avatar.

Every time I see it I want to scratch under its chin and feed it a baby faerie as a treat or something.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Abraxas said:


> @FreeBeer,
> 
> On another note, I love your avatar.
> 
> Every time I see it I want to scratch under its chin and feed it a baby faerie as a treat or something.


So you gonna comment on the clan's socionics types or just scratch the cat? (thx )


----------



## Abraxas

FreeBeer said:


> So you gonna comment on the clan's socionics types or just scratch the cat? (thx )


Brujah - mostly Fp types.
Malkavian - mostly Np types
Ventrue - mostly Tj types
Tremere - mostly NT types
Gangrel - mostly Sp types
Toreador - mostly Fp types
Nosferatu - mostly Tp types


----------



## Kintsugi

I think I others perceive me as rather cold, stand-offish, sometimes even intimidating. I don't really feel that I am all of these things though; I have always considered myself to be pretty open-minded and non-judgmental when it comes to people (unless they do something that makes me withdraw. I can slam doors on people pretty quickly if they do something I don't like.) I see myself as an easy going person who doesn't suffer fools gladly. I think a lot of people consider me 'cold' because, quite often, I just don't give a shit about the same things they do. Things like, conforming to particular social standards, needing to feel that I 'belong' to a group or community and upholding and valuing certain traditions . Equally, I don't care that others value these things either; I just wish they didn't constantly think there must be something wrong with me because I'm not like them. Growing up in a non-Gamma family with absolutely no Gamma influence sucked. :dry:

My family is mainly made up of Alpha and Delta types (I think). I'm beginning to wonder if this might be a factor is why I struggled so much with accepting myself for who I am. Growing up, I always felt like I needed to change myself somehow. Reading Gamma descriptions reminds me of some of the things that family and friends have said about me over the years. It makes me wonder if they were written by non-Gamma types.

I think I'm projecting now. :tongue:


----------



## Immemorial

KookyTookie said:


> I think I others perceive me as rather cold, stand-offish, sometimes even intimidating. I don't really feel that I am all of these things though; I have always considered myself to be pretty open-minded and non-judgmental when it comes to people (unless they do something that makes me withdraw. I can slam doors on people pretty quickly if they do something I don't like.) I see myself as an easy going person who doesn't suffer fools gladly. I think a lot of people consider me 'cold' because, quite often, I just don't give a shit about the same things they do. Things like, conforming to particular social standards, needing to feel that I 'belong' to a group or community and upholding and valuing certain traditions . Equally, I don't care that others value these things either; I just wish they didn't constantly think there must be something wrong with me because I'm not like them. Growing up in a non-Gamma family with absolutely no Gamma influence sucked. :dry:
> 
> My family is mainly made up of Alpha and Delta types (I think). I'm beginning to wonder if this might be a factor is why I struggled so much with accepting myself for who I am. Growing up, I always felt like I needed to change myself somehow. Reading Gamma descriptions reminds me of some of the things that family and friends have said about me over the years. It makes me wonder if they were written by non-Gamma types.
> 
> I think I'm projecting now. :tongue:


I had a case of this with my SEI step-dad. Always arguments and friction between us, and it never really led to any kind of long-term resolution. I eventually just decided to move out because I figured that if it hadn't changed in the 14 or so years we lived in the same house, it was never going to change. 

Far as I know, Socionics was basically founded by Alphas. I tend to find plenty of insulting/annoying things in their descriptions. (SEEs are territorial psychopaths , ILIs are grumpy pessimists who are incapable of taking action themselves, etc) The Romance Style descriptions can be just as annoying.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also:


----------



## firedell

Question to fellow Gamma's: Which other Quadra do you seem to enjoy being around?


----------



## Figure

firedell said:


> Question to fellow Gamma's: Which other Quadra do you seem to enjoy being around?


I do well with the irrational Betas and all Deltas, with EII a little worse. With Gammas, it has to be just a couple - I think the small group thing is really true (we do best in groups of, say, 3). I like Betas in a fun or at least intense group setting (activities, wild parties, etc), Deltas in more casual ones (travel, experimenting, coffee), and Gammas in repeated day to day (just talking). 

Fish out of water with most Alphas except some ILE, in moderation; don't enjoy spending time with the rational Betas unless it's one on one (which is true of a lot of Gammas, we do well 1-1); with EII it's good 1-1 for awhile, but the rigidity becomes irritating, and the wacky connections seem pointless despite the relationship as a whole being okay.


----------



## bionic

Figure said:


> I do well with the irrational Betas and all Deltas, with EII a little worse. With Gammas, it has to be just a couple - I think the small group thing is really true (we do best in groups of, say, 3). I like Betas in a fun or at least intense group setting (activities, wild parties, etc), Deltas in more casual ones (travel, experimenting, coffee), and Gammas in repeated day to day (just talking).


The hell is wrong with you?

Enjoying irrational Betas is like asking for a shitstorm. You must be out of your gdamn mind, Figure. I figure you are.


----------



## bionic

firedell said:


> Question to fellow Gamma's: Which other Quadra do you seem to enjoy being around?


On a serious note:

I have had several Gamma hangouts in my life where there were 6-10 Gammas in a room. I do not mind this one bit. Even if it is mixed with some Deltas. So this whole idea that Gammas hate big groups is BS to me. I think it's more of the fact that Gammas like similar minded people (this is applicable to each quadra tbh). Basically, the people in the quadra are _usually_ gonna like other people within their quadra... despite their personal preference for groups or not.

I enjoy being around Alphas, Gammas, Deltas, and even Betas. Shocker, eh??!

It's not about the quadra for me. It's about the individual. I have had friends from all quadras. I have also hated people from all quadras. Hell, I have met some ESIs I have wanted to punch in the face, some stupid, ignorant LIEs, and some awesome SEIs. Life is weird in this way. The personality type doesn't always matter.... a bridge can always be built between two opposing personalities if they're willing to work at it.


----------



## Figure

bionic said:


> The hell is wrong with you?
> 
> Enjoying irrational Betas is like asking for a shitstorm. You must be out of your gdamn mind, Figure. I figure you are.





> I enjoy being around Alphas, Gammas, Deltas, and even Betas. Shocker, eh??!


Bringing it up must have been convincing, because you changed your mind within 5 fucking minutes. 

Yeah, I like most SLE - except DJArendee - and have some close IEI friends from college. It's Semidual and Kindred to me, Benefit and Supervision to you. Do you like them or do you not? Or did you mean the quadra as a whole?

They can be fun in a party setting if you know them beforehand.


----------



## bionic

Figure said:


> Bringing it up must have been convincing, because you changed your mind within 5 fucking minutes.


Wait, hold up. You actually took ME seriously? Holy popiscles... The hell is wrong with this world?!

No, it's not convincing. The mind never moved, we picked each other up wrong. I thought you meant irrational Betas (as opposed to the Irrational/Rational dichotomy).

On a serious note: I do not think you are ILI at all. I mean hell, you don't even understand the intention behind my statements. LII fits more for you.



Figure said:


> Yeah, I like most SLE - except DJArendee - and have some close IEI friends from college. It's Semidual and Kindred to me, Benefit and Supervision to you. Do you like them or do you not? Or did you mean the quadra as a whole?
> 
> They can be fun in a party setting if you know them beforehand.


Quadra as a whole.


----------



## Figure

bionic said:


> Wait, hold up. You actually took ME seriously? Holy popiscles... The hell is wrong with this world?!


I did. Won't next time. 



> No, it's not convincing. The mind never moved, we picked each other up wrong. I thought you meant irrational Betas (as opposed to the Irrational/Rational dichotomy).


Gotcha. I meant the dichotomy, so SLE and IEI. 



> On a serious note: I do not think you are ILI at all. I mean hell, you don't even understand the intention behind my statements. LII fits more for you.


Neah, it doesn't fit at all. You can't really get a feel for things online. Plus, if I was an LII I'd be in Alpha, and it usually takes less than 5 minutes for me to hate the vast majority of them. The day you catch me wearing an apron baking cupcakes and drinking green apple martinis while playing bananagrams you can call me part of their quadra, otherwise, no.


----------



## bionic

Figure said:


> Neah, it doesn't fit at all. You can't really get a feel for things online. Plus, if I was an LII I'd be in Alpha, and it usually takes less than 5 minutes for me to hate the vast majority of them. The day you catch me wearing an apron baking cupcakes and drinking green apple martinis while playing bananagrams you can call me part of their quadra, otherwise, no.


I'm the Shitonics solver. I cop a feel for everything.

Oh man.... thank god I'm allergic to bananas.


But honestly.... I will stalk the shit out of your posts and find it out on my own: like I did with @liminalthought.

Your type is now tentative. I still love that you got pissed off at me. Hot.


----------



## liminalthought

bionic said:


> But honestly.... I will stalk the shit out of your posts and find it out on my own: like I did with @_liminalthought_.



I HAVE BEEN SUMMONED

and, after all your glorious stalking, what is your judgement of my type? 
(Oh and, the image has been removed)


I'm still trying to decide whether Abraxas is an LII or an ILE (or if he's just the mistyped ILI he's always wanted to be, or maybe it's Ti denial? Who knows, I'm still looking over his posting history).

As for interaction with other quadras, it's ok as long as the right distance is kept. Once you get close enough and know how the person really thinks, the pitfalls of conflicting functions start to show up and that's the cue for you to know to go mingle somewhere else for a while. Knowing when to distance helps the other person reset and maintain their hopeful expectations of you, this even works with interactions between Conflictor relationships (ex: ILI and ESE, these can get pretty bad, in my painful experience).


----------



## Abraxas

liminalthought said:


> I HAVE BEEN SUMMONED
> 
> and, after all your glorious stalking, what is your judgement of my type?
> (Oh and, the image has been removed)
> 
> 
> I'm still trying to decide whether Abraxas is an LII or an ILE (or if he's just the mistyped ILI he's always wanted to be, or maybe it's Ti denial? Who knows, I'm still looking over his posting history).
> 
> As for interaction with other quadras, it's ok as long as the right distance is kept. Once you get close enough and know how the person really thinks, the pitfalls of conflicting functions start to show up and that's the cue for you to know to go mingle somewhere else for a while. Knowing when to distance helps the other person reset and maintain their hopeful expectations of you, this even works with interactions between Conflictor relationships (ex: ILI and ESE, these can get pretty bad, in my painful experience).


I'd be curious to see what she types you as myself. You don't seem like an ILI at all to me. I really never got the ILI vibe from you even for a second.

I love that even Figure's type is being called into question. That's fucking awesome, lol.

You guys are really good at this.


----------



## liminalthought

Abraxas said:


> I'd be curious to see what she types you as myself. You don't seem like an ILI at all to me. I really never got the ILI vibe from you even for a second.
> 
> I love that even Figure's type is being called into question. That's fucking awesome, lol.
> 
> You guys are really good at this.


I was waiting for you to swoop in, especially after my rudely worded comment, excuse me.
What do you suspect I am? 

"You guys are really good at this”
....not sure if serious, or


----------



## Abraxas

liminalthought said:


> I was waiting for you to swoop in, especially after the rude way I worded that comment, excuse me.
> What do you suspect I am?
> 
> "You guys are really good at this”
> ....not sure if serious, or


Was it rude? I just thought it was funny. Whatever source you guys read to get your info about Socionics, hook me up!

Nah, I was being pretty obviously sarcastic, as you noticed.

Your type? Maybe ILE? Who knows. Honestly, I'd have to see how you behave in different contexts. You can't type someone on the internet, and that's why legitimate socionics experts (or MBTI, or whatever else) always do an in-person interview with you, over the phone for example. How people act on a forum doesn't mean shit, but the fact that you guys think it does is pretty amusing.

Unless you guys are just fucking around, in which case, that's cool. I also enjoy a good troll. Especially here on PerC. Fuck, people here will believe anything you say if you say it right. It's almost embarrassing.


----------



## liminalthought

Abraxas said:


> Was it rude? I just thought it was funny. Whatever source you guys read to get your info about Socionics, hook me up!
> 
> Nah, I was being pretty obviously sarcastic, as you noticed.
> 
> Your type? Maybe ILE? Who knows. Honestly, I'd have to see how you behave in different contexts. You can't type someone on the internet, and that's why legitimate socionics experts (or MBTI, or whatever else) always do an in-person interview with you, over the phone for example. How people act on a forum doesn't mean shit, but the fact that you guys think it does is pretty amusing.


over the phone? Do you mean to suggest I call you up to confirm? 
"_hello, this Abraxas? Uh, yeah, hey I need like 5 minutes of feedback' starting...now" _ ahaha, jk

But really, that could be turned into dangerous idea if dropped in the right forum with the right group of people. You could have an army, the well read members of this site for example, of phony personality type diviners making a lot of money. 

Now, isn't there something positive gained if people tried to type themselves on their own? A person's personality can't be that blurred or made that indistinct in comparison to other people by expression over the keyboard. Though, I have to agree that if you want ultimate certainty you do have to rely on original resources.


----------



## Abraxas

liminalthought said:


> over the phone? Do you mean to suggest I call you up to confirm?
> "_hello, this Abraxas? Uh, yeah, hey I need like 5 minutes of feedback' starting...now" _ ahaha, jk
> 
> But really, that could be turned into dangerous idea if dropped in the right forum with the right group of people. You could have an army, the well read members of this site for example, of phony personality type diviners making a lot of money.
> 
> Now, isn't there something positive gained if people tried to type themselves on their own? A person's personality can't be that blurred or made that indistinct in comparison to other people by expression over the keyboard. Though, I have to agree that if you want ultimate certainty you do have to rely on original resources.


Look, that's how it's done. Lol. I'm just saying. Dangerous or not, that's what you get if you seek a professional opinion. As for typing yourself? That's a whole different can of worms. I mean, what are you using for a frame of reference? How you act on the internet? How you act at school? How you act at work? What if you act extremely different in each context?

In my experience, people's true personality can become very distorted over the internet. It depends on how well-adjusted they are normally. For instance, most of my introverted friends that I know from college who I also interact with on the internet act completely different online from the way they do in person. In person, you can't really see who they are because they have a persona up at all times in order to fit in. Then, you get them online and they start trolling the fuck out of people and acting kinda like a tough guy. I myself do that quite a bit, I'm totally different in person.

Although, then you get people who are almost exactly the same on the internet as they are in reality, mainly because they don't spend as much time immersed on the internet. These types are usually extraverts with plenty of social contact to give them a kind of perspective on themselves that I notice a lot of introverts lack. Introverts, again, in my experience, are the most mistyped people of all time. If I get the impression that someone on the internet is an introvert, at that point I just give up bothering to type them. Who fucking knows really, introverts are a mystery even to themselves.

It's the people who are so confident that they can type others (or even themselves) who kind of annoy me. Frankly, there are a lot of idiots on these forums and the world in general who will believe whatever the fuck you tell them because they just don't know any better, and that's a lot of responsibility that I see being taken for granted (especially by extraverts) on websites like these. I just think it's irresponsible for one person to tell another human being who they are based on the limited information they have available to them via a website forum if that other person is going to take it seriously.

Then again, lately I see it so damn much I'm starting to wonder if maybe it's better to let the wolves eat the sheep and just let nature run its course.


----------



## liminalthought

Abraxas said:


> Look, that's how it's done. Lol. I'm just saying. Dangerous or not, that's what you get if you seek a professional opinion. As for typing yourself? That's a whole different can of worms. I mean, what are you using for a frame of reference? How you act on the internet? How you act at school? How you act at work? What if you act extremely different in each context?
> 
> In my experience, people's true personality can become very distorted over the internet. It depends on how well-adjusted they are normally. For instance, most of my introverted friends that I know from college who I also interact with on the internet act completely different online from the way they do in person. In person, you can't really see who they are because they have a persona up at all times in order to fit in. Then, you get them online and they start trolling the fuck out of people and acting kinda like a tough guy. I myself do that quite a bit, I'm totally different in person.
> 
> Although, then you get people who are almost exactly the same on the internet as they are in reality, mainly because they don't spend as much time immersed on the internet. These types are usually extraverts with plenty of social contact to give them a kind of perspective on themselves that I notice a lot of introverts lack. Introverts, again, in my experience, are the most mistyped people of all time. If I get the impression that someone on the internet is an introvert, at that point I just give up bothering to type them. Who fucking knows really, introverts are a mystery even to themselves.
> 
> It's the people who are so confident that they can type others (or even themselves) who kind of annoy me. Frankly, there are a lot of idiots on these forums and the world in general who will believe whatever the fuck you tell them because they just don't know any better, and that's a lot of responsibility that I see being taken for granted (especially by extraverts) on websites like these. I just think it's irresponsible for one person to tell another human being who they are based on the limited information they have available to them via a website forum if that other person is going to take it seriously.
> 
> Then again, lately I see it so damn much I'm starting to wonder if maybe it's better to let the wolves eat the sheep and just let nature run its course.


as more time passed since I last posted, I quivered in fear and sunk deeper into my seat paralyzed, for I knew that an Abraxas signature post was on its way. 

first paragraph, 
you just have to remember what has happened not what might happen irregularly, you have to keep account of regularities. School? Work? Internet? Doesn't matter, people are not always trolling and, as bad as it sounds, you have to start chopping character into boxes. I just remember the repeated behavoirs of each type, I don't really chop them up conceptually. 

Paragraph two, 
people will eventually lift their personas to be able to make statements of conviction, you just have to track it down. 

Paragraph three, 
yes, introverts are more hidden and are clever to make up a persona to aid them until they gain more confidence. But again, if they feel strongly about something, they will make revealing statements of conviction. 

Paragraph four, 
people are testing themselves, they expect someone to sharply rebuke them or else allow their confidence. The fools are the ones seeking legitimate approval, in which case the person expected to give it takes advantage (not much to blame). People need to learn to test the waters, the ones who become overconfident will have a limb of their dignity torn off eventually. 

Last sentence,
Let nature run its course? Sometimes mercy is good, sometimes.


----------



## Abraxas

liminalthought said:


> as more time passed since I last posted, I quivered in fear and sunk deeper into my seat paralyzed, for I knew that an Abraxas signature post was on its way.
> 
> first paragraph,
> you just have to remember what has happened not what might happen irregularly, you have to keep account of regularities. School? Work? Internet? Doesn't matter, people are not always trolling and, as bad as it sounds, you have to start chopping character into boxes. I just remember the repeated behavoirs of each type, I don't really chop them up conceptually.
> 
> Paragraph two,
> people will eventually lift their personas to be able to make statements of conviction, you just have to track it down.
> 
> Paragraph three,
> yes, introverts are more hidden and are clever to make up a persona to aid them until they gain more confidence. But again, if they feel strongly about something, they will make revealing statements of conviction.
> 
> Paragraph four,
> people are testing themselves, they expect someone to sharply rebuke them or else allow their confidence. The fools are the ones seeking legitimate approval, in which case the person expected to give it takes advantage (not much to blame). People need to learn to test the waters, the ones who become overconfident will have a limb of their dignity torn off eventually.
> 
> Last sentence,
> Let nature run its course? Sometimes mercy is good, sometimes.


Alright, I'm bored, lol. You win. Sure, whatever. I tried.

If all that works for you, then obviously it's true for you. That approach just doesn't work for me.

Then again, maybe I just don't care as much. I'm pretty apathetic in general.


----------



## cyamitide

Abraxas said:


> Your type? Maybe ILE? Who knows. Honestly, I'd have to see how you behave in different contexts. You can't type someone on the internet, and that's why legitimate socionics experts (or MBTI, or whatever else) always do an in-person interview with you, over the phone for example. How people act on a forum doesn't mean shit, but the fact that you guys think it does is pretty amusing.


Socionics isn't about how your act.

Socionics types are abbreviated as TIMs, which is short for *"type of information metabolism"*, because socionics is first and foremost about this property known as information metabolism. Everything else (like how you act) follows from that.

It is possible to determine person's information metabolism from their writng. Because what you write is a reflection of how you're processing information (and a very direct reflection at that). Therefore it's legit to type others whom you've only met online if you have seen enough of their posts to figure out which kind of IM they have, even if you've never met them in real life and never seen videos of them.

*Please learn teh fundamentals of socionics before you engage in typing of yourself or anyone else.*

This isn't directed at Abraxas in particular. Everyone should at least skim through the 

*Antoni Kępiński's Information Metabolism (IM)*
that is posted on the front page of Wikisocion.



Abraxas said:


> ... that's why legitimate socionics experts (or MBTI, or whatever else) always do an in-person interview with you, over the phone for example...


Many of them use questionnaires and figure out TIMs by checking the replies (the written text of the respondent) for presence of absence of certain dichotomies, plus-minus signs, dimensionality of functions, and so on. The only difference is that their questionnaires is usually longer than the ones I've seen on this site and contain more relevant questions.

It has become popular to pull out the "oh you can't type me because you never met me irl" because that shields the person from anyone who dares to disagree with their self-typing -- and it's total BS.


----------



## liminalthought

Abraxas said:


> Alright, I'm bored, lol. You win. Sure, whatever. I tried.
> 
> If all that works for you, then obviously it's true for you. That approach just doesn't work for me.
> 
> Then again, maybe I just don't care as much. I'm pretty apathetic in general.


(With delicacy) 

Well, maybe it's because you're LII!! 

(With compassion) 
A wise user once said 


Svidrigailov said:


> Everyone in this thread is an ILI. Even the non-ILIs.


----------



## Abraxas

cyamitide said:


> Socionics isn't about how your act.
> 
> Socionics types are abbreviated as TIMs, which is short for *"type of information metabolism"*, because socionics is first and foremost about this property known as information metabolism. Everything else (like how you act) follows from that.
> 
> It is possible to determine person's information metabolism from their writng. Because what you write is a reflection of how you're processing information (and a very direct reflection at that). Therefore it's legit to type others whom you've only met online if you have seen enough of their posts to figure out which kind of IM they have, even if you've never met them in real life and never seen videos of them.
> 
> *Please learn teh fundamentals of socionics before you engage in typing of yourself or anyone else.*
> 
> This isn't directed at Abraxas in particular. Everyone should at least skim through the
> 
> *Antoni Kępiński's Information Metabolism (IM)*
> that is posted on the front page of Wikisocion.
> 
> 
> Many of them use questionnaires and figure out TIMs by checking the replies (the written text of the respondent) for presence of absence of certain dichotomies, plus-minus signs, dimensionality of functions, and so on. The only difference is that their questionnaires is usually longer than the ones I've seen on this site and contain more relevant questions.
> 
> It has become popular to pull out the "oh you can't type me because you never met me irl" because that shields the person from anyone who dares to disagree with their self-typing -- and it's total BS.


Bitch, please.

First, If I get one more of you clowns jumping to the conclusion that someone hasn't read (probably even more than you) the first thing about socionics just because they have a different opinion than you about it, I might have to just break my rule of never blocking people on this website.

Second, It is the height of stupidity to assume that people do _anything_ completely the same in every context, including processing information. I know you're trying to sound all smart and I hate to knock the thunder out of your moment, but really? Really? I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone pull this shit counter-argument about it being perfectly legitimate to define a human being by a series of fucking posts on a forum website.

Nobody said you couldn't get _some_ insight into who someone is from their posts. But to jump to the conclusion that that's all you need? This is why I can't stop laughing at you jokers. You're so full of yourselves, it's just too great. This website is like one huge circle-jerk sometimes.









liminalthought said:


> (With delicacy)
> 
> Well, maybe it's because you're LII!!
> 
> (With compassion)
> A wise user once said




Are you done yet?


----------



## liminalthought

Abraxas said:


> Bitch, please.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you done yet?


LOL

yes, I'm very satisfied. 
_This is just a rough preview, just wait until I sink my teeth into the red pulsing heart of your private message._


----------



## Abraxas

liminalthought said:


> LOL
> 
> yes, I'm very satisfied.
> _This is just a rough preview, just wait until I sink my teeth into the red pulsing heart of your private message._


Fuck yes, I can't wait.

My body is ready.


----------



## Figure

bionic said:


> But honestly.... I will stalk the shit out of your posts and find it out on my own: like I did with @_liminalthought_.


That's fine with me, stalk away. There is no way in hell I have Ti in block one. Ti people struggle with the word "direct." 

At the very most maybe LIE, which I've toyed around with a bit - but I keep finding that a concept of something precedes the logic. You have to remember the enneagram too, anyone with 3, 7, or 8 may sound more "extraverted" than they really are because of the high drive of the types.


----------



## Helios

liminalthought said:


> Haha, yep. I pulled that, I know I shouldn't have, but I did.


What's wrong with pulling such a tactic if it helps you achieve a desirable end? Keep at it by all means. Don't stop on my account.


----------



## bionic

Ananael said:


> The extreme "us vs them" tone in this passage screams aristocratic values, yet you try to put him into an aristocratic quadra? The irony is fucking glorious, I can't.


No no....

He is just speaking out loud....very......very....bluntly...... :frustrating:


----------



## liminalthought

Ananael said:


> The extreme "us vs them" tone in this passage screams aristocratic values, yet you try to put him into an aristocratic quadra? The irony is fucking glorious, I can't.


I'll shut up.
what do you think about this?


----------



## bionic

Ananael said:


> What's wrong with pulling such a tactic if it helps you achieve a desirable end? Keep at it by all means. Don't stop on my account.


WERK DAT Ni, GURL. U WERKIN' IT.


---


But seriously... should I pull some of the Gammas I've seen on here into the thread? I feel like I walk a thin line doing it when a lot of people on this forum aren't into Socionics yet.


----------



## Helios

liminalthought said:


> I'll shut up.
> what do you think about this?


About what exactly? There's been a lot of random stuff going on in this thread since I last posted. But if this is about Figure's type, I haven't seen too much that contradicts his self-typing. 

Now if we're talking about quadra values, based on my understanding of aristocracy vs. democracy, I don't see why any gamma would be too concerned with how well people accept or respond the knowledge laid out by the group or members of the group. If the person is wrong, they're just flat out wrong because the facts say so. Not because people who are a part of a group of people said so. The authority lies with respect to the facts and external factors and not because people who identify with a certain label are in agreement. That's something that I'd think that aristocratic quadra would be more inclined to do.


----------



## Helios

bionic said:


> WERK DAT Ni, GURL. U WERKIN' IT.
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> But seriously... should I pull some of the Gammas I've seen on here into the thread? I feel like I walk a thin line doing it when a lot of people on this forum aren't into Socionics yet.


If you have found some Gammas, bring them here! I think watching how they interact amongst each other would tell a lot.


----------



## bionic

Figure said:


> You need to look more closely at the Ni and Te descriptions then. All you did with the video is watch 7 minutes and superficially link topics of conversation to surface-level descriptions off of one website's description of verbal trends.


Why should I when I have read Psychological Types by Carl Jung like 10 times? I've read a ton of articles and books on Socionics, MBTI, Enneagram, Keirsey, Lenore Thompson, etc. I've consumed all these personality theories like it was oxygen and now my new obsession is Statistics. (anyway, back on topic)

Right, that is all I did _TODAY_ but I have years of personality typing knowledge and experience in my noggin. I also VI'd you while I was watching the video. It doesn't take much because I already what to look for.




Figure said:


> Actually, the motivation is really important here. I am a self pres 7. Self pres of any enneagram type are more likely to talk about things such as food, money, clothing, shelter, etc. Because the motivations are directed towards these things, any socionics type who is self-pres in enneagram will still use the IEs they prefer, but the topic will be about self-pres needs. This is because, again, the concept of an IE is the music, and the concept of an enneagram type is the music player. What you actually hear is the "how"/IE and what actually happens is the "why"/motivation. You have both, both play a role at all times, and you can't separate them. You can't play battleship with chess pieces, which is what you do if you assume that the topic of conversation comes straight from the person's IEs.
> 
> An Si person will actually say "the room is cold" because they compare physical past to present. A self pres Ni person may dream off about things they want or experiences they have had that satisfied the need. Same goes for the Sexual subtype and intensity.
> 
> 
> You're wrong too.


Nah, it's not important to me. I'm separating both theories in my mind and I'm solely looking at Socionics. Your enneagram does not matter to me. It's out of context --- ad nauseum.

Si and Ni are not that simple. Here is a link:

Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10

^ "9. The Introverted Sensation Type" & "7. The Introverted Intuition Type" is what you're looking for on the page. This is a decent version of Chapter 10, tbh.


*** Psychological Types influenced the ideas of cognitive functions in MBTI and information elements in Socionics.

I was wrong when I said LII. I am not wrong when I say SLI.


----------



## Abraxas

To be completely honest, after the bullshit a few pages ago, I'm basically convinced I'm not an ILI at all. You guys were probably right. I'm recalling similar dick-waving contests I've had with INTJs in the INTJ sub-forum who were so obviously INTJs that it hurt my brain to deny it that hard.

If I want to be (at least somewhat) mature about this, there's no fucking way I can honestly deny I'm really noticing a big difference in the way that @bionic and @liminalthought play around compared to myself. Especially after all of that. The whole time I'm thinking, "man are these people just idiots or what?" Truth is, yes you are basically just idiots, but whereas that doesn't really bother you, it bothers me. I don't like acting stupid. I prefer to make sense (even when I fuck around).

So yeah, I'm probably a LII in Socionics, despite that I don't really identify with anything on socionics.us or wikisocion written about rationality. But not because I identify with being a LII - because fuck if I identify with being an ILI if you guys are ILIs. No offense. (I assume that won't offend you and you probably take it as a compliment, because in a way it is.)

I'm going to cut my losses here and stop getting my shit tossed around trying to keep up with the real gammas.

It's not as if I don't think I prefer Ti anyway. In basically every thread I've posted recently I've said I'm Ni-Ti (or maybe Ti-Ni, whatever). I said as much to liminalthought in my long ass private message to him. Truth is, it's probably not even Ti-Ni, or Ti anything. Just straight up Ti, with my auxiliary function being mostly unconscious (thus Ne) and only Ni when I'm aware of it (which is probably almost never).

There, we good?

Also, fuck yessss, you guys are tearing Figure apart. Please don't stop. I want to leeearrnn thinnnggssss.


----------



## Figure

bionic said:


> Right, that is all I did _TODAY but I have years of personality typing knowledge and experience in my noggin. I also VI'd you while I was watching the video. It doesn't take much because I already what to look for._


VI is bullshit, and I call the same to your typing methods. 



> Nah, it's not important to me. I'm separating both theories in my mind and I'm solely looking at Socionics. Your enneagram does not matter to me. It's out of context --- ad nauseum.


You *CAN'T *separate them and still type the person by what they say, because the theories intertwine per description. 

Look, if you really think you're Superwoman in socionics and you really are that interested in proving me wrong with my own typing, why don't we set up a video chat and we can settle it in person. We can post it here, and people can decide for themselves whether I supervise the fuck out of you, or we simply correct each other as Mirrors do.


----------



## bionic

Ananael said:


> Now if we're talking about quadra values, based on my understanding of aristocracy vs. democracy, I don't see why any gamma would be too concerned with how well people accept or respond the knowledge laid out by the group or members of the group. If the person is wrong, they're just flat out wrong because the facts say so. Not because people who are a part of a group of people said so. The authority lies with respect to the facts and external factors and not because people who identify with a certain label are in agreement. That's something that I'd think that aristocratic quadra would be more inclined to do.


Right. It's hard to clarify what I see of @liminalthought's intentions without putting him on the spot.

You're on the ball with Democratic Vs. Aristocratic but I think you're missing his intentions. Maybe you can get it if I say: Think about his Fe-polr.

You know sometimes when you're trying to make a point and you pull what is left in your arsenal, even if it is out of your usual thoughts?

^ I'm hoping you get my train of thought... I think you will.


----------



## Helios

bionic said:


> Right. It's hard to clarify what I see of @_liminalthought_'s intentions without putting him on the spot.
> 
> You're on the ball with Democratic Vs. Aristocratic but I think you're missing his intentions. Maybe you can get it if I say: Think about his Fe-polr.
> 
> You know sometimes when you're trying to make a point and you pull what is left in your arsenal, even if it is out of your usual thoughts?
> 
> ^ I'm hoping you get my train of thought... I think you will.


Oh yeah I can definitely see that happening when you get really frustrated with things. Just like I could see someone just as easily falling back on their demonstrative or ignoring functions as leverage in an argument where their base and creative might not be completely infallible, or to give themselves an "extra push" so to speak.


----------



## Abraxas

I recognized what @liminalthought was doing right away because it reminds me of other INTJs I've known (bethdeth, antiant, etc).

The guy seems obviously an ILI. The way he interacted with me, and then with Figure. I had to think about it and make an ass of myself first, but in retrospect it's pretty obvious to me.


----------



## Figure

liminalthought said:


> You're in denial.
> Bottom line is you're not using Ni at all, I doubt you've ever seen what Ni even looks like.
> 
> Claiming to be INTJ is a nice asset, you want all the perks that come attached to the title, but that's all it is for you.
> 
> Just know this, you'll never quite fit in with other gammas. You denounce bionic and me, and yet we're the gammas right in front of you, you can't find a way to make a plausible concession. Will you denounce the members of your supposed quadra in order to leave yourself as the only true ILI? what a conceited thing to do. You're not mixing with the dynamics going on here, you're conflicting with our values.
> 
> Try it, try being SLI, you'll go through a lot less trouble and you'll find much more satisfaction.


I'm not conflicting with your values, I'm conflicting with your opinion. And last I checked, I had more objective backing than for my own type than you did, as you pussied out and failed to post a response. If you think I give a fuck of being the only one to believe my type is correct, you'd be a dumbfuck to believe a Delta would keep it going. 

I'm far from naive as to what you're doing. The only thing I can't see is the messages you two are sending to each other in private. But hey, if it keeps you deluded enough to keep our entertainment of the evening afloat, by all means pussy away.

Just know this. You're the one who can't stand alone. Gamma isn't about "fitting in."


----------



## Abraxas

@liminalthought

Are you sure Figure isn't a LII?

His posts scream, "this doesn't make any fucking sense in my paradigm so I'm going to correct you." It strikes me as the kind of thing I was doing just a couple pages ago, trying to defend my (what appeared to me to be) extremely well-founded opinions based on 31678605127518257825210589217509812 facts that I spent 257819257108957108925701251 hours studying because I needed to be 257819571057128957198057380564780175850198 percent certain I was correct.

I'm just trying to understand. Teach me this magic.


----------



## bionic

Abraxas said:


> If I want to be (at least somewhat) mature about this, there's no fucking way I can honestly deny I'm really noticing a big difference in the way that @bionic and @liminalthought play around compared to myself. Especially after all of that. The whole time I'm thinking, "man are these people just idiots or what?" Truth is, yes you are basically just idiots, but whereas that doesn't really bother you, it bothers me. I don't like acting stupid. I prefer to make sense (even when I fuck around).


We're all a bunch of assholes on this forum, LOL. But seriously -- you brought up an interesting point:

I know I'm being a complete dickwad when I argue someone's type and it runs the potentiality of pissing THAT person off... but I don't care. I know it comes across stupid and it does not matter to me because it is personally entertaining and I'm not trying to win a debate there. I just enjoy the rough and tumble of the argument. I don't mind not making sense when I fuck around because I'm making sarcastic comments out of my _own_ personal entertainment. If other people understand it and join in --- awesome. If they don't --- oh well. This, to me, is a lot like the Gamma humor and that rough play that they talk about in articles.

This makes me think about my LIE cousin. He is 6'5 and a beast football player. I'm a short little Latina girl at 5'3. I rip the kid apart every chance I get. I will tease him about anything and make little comments - he does the same back. WE see it as us just roughing it up and being funny. Others, especially non-Gammas, see it as us bullying each other --- but that is obviously not our intentions toward one another.


----------



## Figure

Abraxas said:


> @_liminalthought_
> 
> Are you sure Figure isn't a LII?
> 
> His posts scream, "this doesn't make any fucking sense in my paradigm so I'm going to correct you." It strikes me as the kind of thing I was doing just a couple pages ago, trying to defend my (what appeared to me to be) extremely well-founded opinions based on 31678605127518257825210589217509812 facts that I spent 257819257108957108925701251 hours studying because I needed to be 257819571057128957198057380564780175850198 percent certain I was correct.
> 
> I'm just trying to understand. Teach me this magic.


This is more of an 8 vs. 7 thing than socionics. 

If you haven't noticed, the three of us haven't had any trouble understanding what each other is saying. It's that our opinions themselves are different.


----------



## Abraxas

@bionic

Yeah, I noticed. Lol. That's really what woke me up. Last night, jesus christ I don't know what got into me (same shit that always does I guess, I'm a fucking idiot essentially). But every time you and I ever interact, it's always like getting sense knocked into my head that takes a while before it hits. Look at how I rage quitted 16types over the same shit (being run off for acting like a LII and denying it till hell broke loose).

I don't know what the fuck my problem is. I always do this. I always get some stupid shit in my head (because the honest to god truth is that I DO read the fuck out of wikisocion, and socionics.us, and everything I can get my hands on, because I neeeeeeeeeed to be a gorillion percent certain of everything) but I still manage to fuck it up. I get utterly convinced, and I'm just... totally lost. Beyond hope.

I felt like a piece of shit all day today. I deleted my bookmark to this website and everything last night because I was being such a passive-aggressive little bitch.

Maybe it's nothing personal and it's just like mixing chemicals that don't mix. It can't be helped, we can't all be friends. It's not that some people are just wrong to be who they are, it's just... the way it is I guess?

I'm probably annoying the shit out of you right now.


----------



## Abraxas

Figure said:


> This is more of an 8 vs. 7 thing than socionics.
> 
> If you haven't noticed, the three of us haven't had any trouble understanding what each other is saying. It's that our opinions themselves are different.


I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here though because I really want to see how this all plays out.

They pegged me, and maybe you're right or maybe you're wrong.

Nevertheless, I love a good fight (as long as I'm not part of it).

Just don't give up and get pissed off or bored - I want to learn from watching how you guys interact.


----------



## bionic

Figure said:


> I'm not conflicting with your values, I'm conflicting with your opinion. And last I checked, I had more objective backing than for my own type than you did, as you pussied out and failed to post a response. If you think I give a fuck of being the only one to believe my type is correct, you'd be a dumbfuck to believe a Delta would keep it going.
> 
> I'm far from naive as to what you're doing. The only thing I can't see is the messages you two are sending to each other in private. But hey, if it keeps you deluded enough to keep our entertainment of the evening afloat, by all means pussy away.


^ Be careful. Don't go into full-on ad hominem attacks. You could get an infraction.

We're only messaging about the Russian articles I sent him in private, haha.

I think we can just summarize it down to: Me and Liminalthought think you are a SLI and you think you aren't. No point getting heated and pulling personal attacks. Time to simmer down.



Figure said:


> If you haven't noticed, the three of us haven't had any trouble understanding what each other is saying. It's that our opinions themselves are different.


^ I agree.

Which is why I stand by SLI. Similar values of Te/Fi that are shared between the Gamma and Delta quadras. All three of us seem to understand the Te behind each other's arguments but the opposing contexts of Si/Ni is what is drawing our viewpoints apart.


----------



## Figure

Abraxas said:


> I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here though because I really want to see how this all plays out.
> 
> They pegged me, and maybe you're right or maybe you're wrong.
> 
> Nevertheless, I love a good fight (as long as I'm not part of it).
> 
> Just don't give up and get pissed off or bored - I want to learn from watching how you guys interact.


Look, the only reason I'm holding back right now is because A.) I don't want to get banned and B.) I'm not used to being able to actually go all out. I actually don't give a fuck what type they think I am, I'm just enjoying the game. I've tried to be rational so far not knowing if we were being serious or not, but since @_bionic_ blew the cover I guess we're all on the same page now, and it continues. 

Sorry @_bionic_ @_liminalthought_, I went halfass this far. If we're really playing then it's your turn to respond as the outstanding posts are mine. If we're not, and you really want to discuss my type that doggedly, then let's bag the game and talk about it via IEs instead of type descriptions.


----------



## Abraxas

Figure said:


> Look, the only reason I'm holding back right now is because A.) I don't want to get banned and B.) I'm not used to being able to actually go all out. I actually don't give a fuck what type they think I am, I'm just enjoying the game. I've tried to be rational so far not knowing if we were being serious or not, but since @_bionic_ blew the cover I guess we're all on the same page now, and it continues.
> 
> Sorry @_bionic_ @_liminalthought_, I went halfass this far. If we're really playing then it's your turn to respond as the outstanding posts are mine.


Your reasons make perfect sense to me.

I just note that I thought you and I were on good terms because we've talked privately before and shared a lot of similar thoughts and opinions, and even though I basically betrayed you a few posts ago by agreeing with the opposite side of this discussion, I wanted to make sure that you were okay with me switching sides in this debate.

I don't want you to dislike me.


----------



## bionic

Figure said:


> Look, the only reason I'm holding back right now is because A.) I don't want to get banned and B.) I'm not used to being able to actually go all out. I actually don't give a fuck what type they think I am, I'm just enjoying the game. I've tried to be rational so far not knowing if we were being serious or not, but since @_bionic_ blew the cover I guess we're all on the same page now, and it continues.
> 
> Sorry @_bionic_ @_liminalthought_, I went halfass this far. If we're really playing then it's your turn to respond as the outstanding posts are mine. If we're not, and you really want to discuss my type that doggedly, then let's bag the game and talk about it via IEs instead of type descriptions.


I don't want you to get banned either just because we don't agree on something. 

I think this would be a big game of paintball IRL.

I just wanna take a knife, cut out my ovaries, and sell them for $$$. I wonder how much I can get for them on the black market...


----------



## Figure

bionic said:


> ^ Be careful. Don't go into full-on ad hominem attacks. You could get an infraction.


Whatever



> ^ I agree.
> 
> Which is why I stand by SLI. Similar values of Te/Fi that are shared between the Gamma and Delta quadras. All three of us seem to understand the Te behind each other's arguments but the opposing contexts of Si/Ni is what is drawing our viewpoints apart.


I don't understand what you think it so Ni-ish about your argument. It's hunch-ish and pulls together multiple parts of a theory, but but I'm actually surprised you haven't dug more deeply into innate concepts as support. When I talk about a pattern, I envision innate form. There's an ostensible "form" for everyone's way of interacting, from which the patterns deviate or align. It has nothing to do with physical things either, it's purely a mental image. That's actually where I got my username - because I think in figures. 

This is how I connect with LIE. There is a tendency to point so something and associate it conceptually, then correct both ways. You do it. 

If you think that has anything to do with Si, then go. 



> I don't want you to get banned either just because we don't agree on something.
> 
> I think this would be a big game of paintball IRL.
> 
> I just wanna take a knife, cut out my ovaries, and sell them for $$$. I wonder how much I can get for them on the black market...


Hilariously enough, I do believe you aren't as sure of that as you sound, and that holding firm is just part of the higher sheath of our entertainment. You'll never say, so whatever. It sucks we can't punch it more, but I'm not getting banned.



Abraxas said:


> Your reasons make perfect sense to me.
> 
> I just note that I thought you and I were on good terms because we've talked privately before and shared a lot of similar thoughts and opinions, and even though I basically betrayed you a few posts ago by agreeing with the opposite side of this discussion, I wanted to make sure that you were okay with me switching sides in this debate.
> 
> I don't want you to dislike me.


Lol I don't care if you liked me or not. If you were one to feel comfortable joining in I would have brought you into it too. I *enjoy *that kind of thing, we usually get in trouble for doing it IRL.

And, you have the full right to your own opinion anyway


----------



## bionic

Abraxas said:


> @bionic
> 
> I'm probably annoying the shit out of you right now.


You're not actually. I'm just trying to understand you because I'm not quite understanding why you feel so down on yourself. I actually feel bad that you feel bad. :/

I'm taking this as you just being confused and beating yourself up for it. Seriously though, don't be so down on yourself, chap. It's not worth being upset about. Just keep swimming~~

You do know your stuff, more than a lot of the Alpha-NTs around here.

I wasn't aware that you rage quitted 16types. I did too, lol. Well... I asked to be banned because the people there were psychotic.
----


I think it's a very NT thing in general to be an information sponge... but it's HOW the NTs apply the information or synthesize it that tells the difference. Does that make sense?


----------



## Abraxas

@_bionic_

I dunno honestly. I think I just have self-esteem issues or something, probably from a lack of contact with real people. I've been out of a job since April and just holed up in my damn bedroom this entire year until college classes start up next month. Something happens after enough isolation and I just get really dumb.

Your responses are actually going a LOT to help me feel better though. I dunno why I give so much of a shit, but something inside me is really intimidated by how you talk and takes everything you say like it's gospel, and I'm being an idiot if I don't at least consider why it might be right. It's totally different from some of the other posts people make, you know? Some people, they just have a way of talking that you can instantly tell this person is just an ass and has no clue what they are talking about - but you speak with a kind of charisma and authority. Like, you're so detached from your own opinion that you're totally unflappable.

I think you remind me a bit of my uncle actually. He's the kind of guy who just casually tells you that you're a fucking idiot when he thinks you're an idiot, and I've always simultaneously hated that he does that (when he does it to me) but also I really admire it (when I think about it later). He doesn't get upset when he does it, actually he laughs when he says it. Like it's just a fact when someone is being stupid, and why should he give a fuck. He's so laid back and arrogant, and he's usually right, and he gets shit done, and nobody fucks with him. He's like a lazy dragon. The only time he ever gets irritated is when you talk back and show him any disrespect. Then he'll get serious and be like, "hey, I think you need to shut the fuck up." And that's what happens next - you shut the fuck up - because he has this death aura when he gets like that which scares the shit out of me.

As for the NT thing, that vaguely makes sense... I think. Can you give me an example?


----------



## Abraxas

Figure said:


> Lol I don't care if you liked me or not. If you were one to feel comfortable joining in I would have brought you into it too. I *enjoy *that kind of thing, we usually get in trouble for doing it IRL.
> 
> And, you have the full right to your own opinion anyway


Well, okay I'll play some ball too then I guess.

I think the way you are trying to justify your point of view by arguing that enneagram somehow invalidates the observations that @bionic is making don't make sense. The thing is, that would make sense if Socionics wasn't a model that could account for what she's been observing, but it isn't incomplete in that way. Enneagram is just a different twist, but it's not filling in any kind of gaps here. Maybe it is with MBTI, or Jung, but I'm not so sure it applies to Socionics.

Socionics is pretty complete. I think it actually does account for motivation, thus, enneagram isn't needed when giving a socionics analysis of type. One can just stick to socionics and get a "complete" picture, if you will, which may share some similarity with enneagram, but only because it overlaps in some areas - not because Enneagram is better at giving an account of said motivations.

I think if you are going to make a strong argument here, you're going to have to set aside Enneagram, and even if you think that's a handicap, bite the bullet and win the battle one-handed by only relying on Socionics to explain your side.


----------



## Zero11

liminalthought said:


> She's IEE, your dual.
> _your life as an INTJ has been a lie _:crazy:.
> 
> But hey, it's like Abraxas said, I don't have enough evidence, so consider this but don't take me too seriously. Maybe, reread the SLI descriptions.


Funny how this corresponds with IEI - IEE PLair Ideal Inspiration :crazy: Socionic Duality is such a Fail. I was done with all the Socionics stuff available and started to use their Samples. And with the Time it became clearer and clearer, sure it was a harsh break from the easy theoretical Constructs but it´s healing in the Process. And if anyone expects a Diplomatic approach their -it´s like a goddamn Dojo-.

IEI
1. Inspiration: IEE (ideal), ILE, EII
2. Augmentation: IEI (most), ILI, EIE
3. Compensation: LII, ESI
4. Partitioning: SEI, SLI, LSE, LIE, ESE
5. Suppression: SLE (lowest), LSI, SEE

1. Inspiration: Extinguishment (ideal), Mirage, Quasi-Identical
2. Augmentation: Identical (most), Kindred, Mirror
3. Compensation: Beneficiary, Benefactor
4. Partitioning: Business, Super-Ego, Conflictor, Supervisor, Supervisee
5. Suppression: Dual (lowest), Activator, Semi-Dual



> 5.*Unapproachable and thus desired*. A girl-student by the name of Laima (The Politician) gave a good description of this type when she tried to describe the hero of her dreams: "He must be handsome and smart, with big and sad eyes, not talkative. He does not tell compliments, and by that he creates an impression of his inapproachability. He is taunted by myriads of problems, which, in my opinion are nothing to be bothered with. I am attracted by his sadness, seriousness, so I try to amuse him, to raise his spirits, to make him happy. If such a boy is present at a party, I wouldn't be bored." This is a vivid description of this personality type, who is constant in his feelings, does not like adventures, and desires total dependence of his demanding partner.


Sorry guys it´s just a certain kind of ENFp



firedell said:


> Trust and understanding are big to the ESFp. They never try to judge people’s feelings or criticize them, *but dishonesty is something that they won’t tolerate.* ESFps may not show praise outright or shower people with excessive attention, but they believe more in feelings being understood, and want people to respect a general, moral code. They sometimes show appreciation very subtly; either confusing some people or making them feel accepted. ESFps don’t like to invade other people, so they go ahead in approaching their feelings cautiously.


Real Life example wasn´t an ESFp.


----------



## Figure

DP


----------



## Figure

Abraxas said:


> Well, okay I'll play some ball too then I guess.
> 
> I think the way you are trying to justify your point of view by arguing that enneagram somehow invalidates the observations that @_bionic_ is making don't make sense. The thing is, that would make sense if Socionics wasn't a model that could account for what she's been observing, but it isn't incomplete in that way. Enneagram is just a different twist, but it's not filling in any kind of gaps here. Maybe it is with MBTI, or Jung, but I'm not so sure it applies to Socionics.


It very much does fill in gaps. 

An IE and a core fear are not the same thing. The IEs are not fears. They are pieces of a system that describes information processing. Any sociotype can therefore have any of the 9 fears, because the way in which someone compensates for their fear can be done within the context of any type of information being brought in. 

Bionic and liminal are 8's. 8's fear being vulnerable so they control others so they are not controlled. 8's think they understand truth, so they push the situation to fit what they think is "true" by denying everything that doesn't fit, regardless of how valid it is. 

I am a 7 (7w8). 7's fear being deprived or dependent so they start stimulation so they feel buzzed. 7's think they can rationalize their way through anything, so they logically justify whatever they can, regardless of whether it is "true" or not. 

If you don't believe any of that has anything to do with the contours of our conversation because it is all explained by socionics, then jolly well. But none of us disagree because of different quadra values, we disagree because we all took a position and are weak if to go back on it. 



> I think if you are going to make a strong argument here, you're going to have to set aside Enneagram, and even if you think that's a handicap, bite the bullet and win the battle one-handed by only relying on Socionics to explain your side.


Then they or you need to respond to the point by point analysis of why it is Ni and not Si.


----------



## Abraxas

Figure said:


> It very much does fill in gaps.
> 
> An IE and a core fear are not the same thing. The IEs are not fears. They are pieces of a system that describes information processing. Any sociotype can therefore have any of the 9 fears, because the way in which someone compensates for their fear can be done within the context of any type of information being brought in.
> 
> Bionic and liminal are 8's. 8's fear being vulnerable so they control others so they are not controlled. 8's think they understand truth, so they push the situation to fit what they think is "true" by denying everything that doesn't fit, regardless of how valid it is.
> 
> I am a 7 (7w8). 7's fear being deprived or dependent so they start stimulation so they feel buzzed. 7's think they can rationalize their way through anything, so they logically justify whatever they can, regardless of whether it is "true" or not.
> 
> If you don't believe any of that has anything to do with the contours of our conversation because it is all explained by socionics, then jolly well. But none of us disagree because of different quadra values, we disagree because we all took a position and are weak if to go back on it.


Hmm!

I guess I can see what you're saying. I just had to imagine, for instance, myself (if I am a LII, maybe you can help me out there, you've known me for a long time and we've interacted a lot) with a different enneagram, and I can see how it would not necessarily make a difference in terms of sociotype analysis.

E.g., a 2w1 could be a LII, but the approach they'd take to offering up new perspectives via logical abstraction would have more of a "love me, appreciate me" vibe to it, since they are trying to maintain that guise of the "helper" at all times. Kind of like, the good-natured professor or something? Or, as another random example, an 8w9 LII might be more direct - same goal, offering up new perspectives via logical abstraction - but this time, the motivation is different. It's because they want to assert their authority, as that justifies their existence, and maybe that w9 kicks in a little sometimes, backing that assertiveness up with a little bit of passive-aggressiveness if they meet some resistance they're not sure how to handle?

It almost makes me want to write up an article describing variants of all the sociotypes within every single enneatype - but who am I kidding, fuck that much work. I'm way too lazy.


----------



## Zero11

Abraxas said:


> It almost makes me want to write up an article describing variants of all the sociotypes within every single enneatype - but who am I kidding, fuck that much work. *I'm way too lazy*.


Yep "*Ni* Fe" fits you the best. You were also very inconsistent throughout your last post. Typical unsureness of a classic Ni-dom.


----------



## Abraxas

Zero11 said:


> Yep "*Ni* Fe" fits you the best. You were also very inconsistent throughout your last post. Typical unsureness of a classic Ni-dom.


 @Promethea typed me as IEI a while back too. I toyed with that idea for a bit. And MissJordan (I won't dare put an @ in front of his name, lest the devil himself show up) figured I was probably an MBTI INFJ, just looking at my display of Jungian functions. Even I did come out and admit at one point that I might be a feeler and just not know it because maybe I just take my feelings for granted, and instead I'm more aware of my thinking because that's what takes more effort to focus on, so it creates the misconception in my head that I'm a thinker?

Although, @liminalthought thinks I'm a LII. I think bionic does too. I dunno what Figure thinks.

Hell, I just took a shower a few minutes ago and to be honest, I was just remembering about IEI while I was in there.

I dunno, how do you confirm these things? I've read everything, why the fuck isn't it clicking for me the way it does for you bastards? Dammit. I want to be right too. It's my turn.


----------



## Zero11

Abraxas said:


> _Promethea_ typed me as IEI a while back too. I toyed with that idea for a bit. And MissJordan (I won't dare put an @ in front of his name, lest the devil himself show up) figured I was probably an MBTI INFJ, just looking at my display of Jungian functions. Even I did come out and admit at one point that I might be a feeler and just not know it because maybe I just take my feelings for granted, and instead I'm more aware of my thinking because that's what takes more effort to focus on, so it creates the misconception in my head that I'm a thinker?


A cruel thought :crazy: to be true, but when I think about using Fi for example with the strength Fi-doms or even Auxes doing it thats just not a possiblity. 



> Although, @_liminalthought_ thinks I'm a LII. I think bionic does too. I dunno what Figure thinks.


Like the most Socionist think Jung was LII or some "Jungians". Ni is by far the worst at expressing itself, it has a huge Quality loss outside of our Heads. Ti is still in Realtime.



> I dunno, how do you confirm these things? I've read everything, why the fuck isn't it clicking for me the way it does for you bastards? Dammit. I want to be right too. It's my turn.


I came to understand Fe better the last time so my sureness is rising.  It´s getting easier to recognize this stuff and Socionics is surely at the End of it´s Wisdom with some Exceptions like Boolean11 which I met at the INTJforum after his ban from PerC who surely made Progress.


----------



## Kintsugi

This thread just got interesting. roud:


----------



## Abraxas

DP

Fuck man. PerC having a heart attack or what lately? Get it together website.


----------



## Abraxas

@Zero11,

Actually... kinda crazy you mention IEI, as I was just reading up on the intertype relations.

It _does_ seem to perfectly describe why I feel so intimidated around Bionic. Because if she's a LIE (which I'm pretty sure she is) then she'd be my "supervisor" and I'm the "supervisee."



wikisocion - supervision said:


> Common ground between supervision partners is usually attained by the supervisor resonating with the leading function of the supervisee (which is his creative function). The attitudes expressed as absolute values by the supervisee are worthwhile to the supervisor, but are seen as a by-product of more important pursuits.


This seems to be more or less what actually happened.

When bionic said this:

"You're not actually. I'm just trying to understand you because I'm not quite understanding why you feel so down on yourself. I actually feel bad that you feel bad. :/"

... it immediately cheered me up. I felt _way_ better. Since the very start of the thread, I thought for sure I was just going to annoy her and she'd be like, rolling her eyes at everything I said, and I got frustrated by that. Several times I just walked away and said "fuck that thread."

I still do. It's almost creepy how uneasy I feel posting here now. Fuck. I started posting here what... less than a week ago this thread was pinned? And now I'm like in a 180 degree turnabout.

I think it's because I can't read anyone's emotions here. Nothing makes sense to me, it's all Greek.

Also, I just noticed what I said to @Figure about not wanting to ruin his opinion of me by disagreeing with him. And then notice how he responded saying, essentially, he's not worried about it, and I ought to just deal with it. That's a very "gamma" way to respond to what I said. It made me think of this:



wikisocion - beta quadra said:


> A group consisting of Betas and Gammas does not mix well. Betas try to make general jokes, but *Gammas make extremely personal sharp jokes. Gammas like everyone to take care of their own needs and people are constantly moving and forming small groups but Betas want people to stay together.*


----------



## Zero11

Can´t compute :laughing: (I mean myself)

You shouldn´t take this Gamma biased Alpha NT wikisocion description to serious.
Fe on Fi here is made far to Black and White:

*Gammas like everyone to take care of their own needs* :angry:


----------



## Promethea

KookyTookie said:


> This thread just got interesting. roud:


Your avatar and signature are sooo pretty.

And @Abraxas is probably a beta, but its ok if he doesn't sit at my goth table, he looks cuter dancing around. ;D


----------



## Abraxas

Promethea said:


> Your avatar and signature are sooo pretty.
> 
> And @_Abraxas_ is probably a beta, but its ok if he doesn't sit at my goth table, he looks cuter dancing around. ;D


You did that because you knew it would make me blush.

Fiiiiiiine~ we can be goths and I'll gothy goth it up with the goths at the goth bar.

But there ain't nothin' you can do 'bout muh real self. Ah jus' haf'ta keep dat a sekrit den ah s'pose.


* *




Ya'll know I'm really just a cutesy SD chibi neko-boi who spits white hot fire tryin' to act like a thug ass gangsta pimp! YEE BOI! *c-walks*


----------



## Promethea

Abraxas said:


> You did that because you knew it would make me blush.
> 
> Fiiiiiiine~ we can be goths and I'll gothy goth it up with the goths at the goth bar.
> 
> But there ain't nothin' you can do 'bout muh real self. Ah jus' haf'ta keep dat a sekrit den ah s'pose.
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya'll know I'm really just a cutesy SD chibi neko-boi who spits white hot fire tryin' to act like a thug ass gangsta pimp! YEE BOI! *c-walks*


this thread needs moar *vidz* of abraxas c-walkin


----------



## LibertyPrime

Abraxas said:


> @Promethea typed me as IEI a while back too. I toyed with that idea for a bit. And MissJordan (I won't dare put an @ in front of his name, lest the devil himself show up) figured I was probably an MBTI INFJ, just looking at my display of Jungian functions. Even I did come out and admit at one point that I might be a feeler and just not know it because maybe I just take my feelings for granted, and instead I'm more aware of my thinking because that's what takes more effort to focus on, so it creates the misconception in my head that I'm a thinker?
> 
> Although, @liminalthought thinks I'm a LII. I think bionic does too. I dunno what Figure thinks.
> 
> Hell, I just took a shower a few minutes ago and to be honest, I was just remembering about IEI while I was in there.
> 
> I dunno, how do you confirm these things? I've read everything, why the fuck isn't it clicking for me the way it does for you bastards? Dammit. I want to be right too. It's my turn.


XD this sounds familiar (different types thou). Yesterday I was thinkingL Omg I'm ISTP-LSI...omg..omg...not true not true..*reads own posts again...:S damn that sounds so Ti...somethings wrong here *goes through dichotomies again and double checks F vs. T

Eventually I relaxed into thinking i'm F.


----------



## Kanerou

Sitting up before work, watching a Crash Bandicoot 2 LP. I set my alarm for 6am but woke up about 4am, and my body wasn't going back to sleep. My sleep was also interrupted by the fire alarm going off at 9:30pm, most likely idiots smoking in the stairwell. (Seriously, dipshits can't walk a few feet and do it outside?!) But I'm alright. Mostly. Today is also the day I reinstate my health insurance (thank god). Chronic disease + recovering from a bad infection + no health insurance _sucks_. I'm having a physical done on Monday so I can (hopefully) take care of various health-related issues and be able to do my job even better so they want to keep me around. I also have to make sure all these drugs aren't screwing up my body, something I'm pretty sure that my dermatologist is supposed to be keeping track of. >.>

As for the quadra question, I don't type enough people IRL to know which ones I do best with. I also haven't had that many good friends recently, so I don't hang out with people much. Generally speaking, though, who I get along with depends on the environment. In a work setting, I definitely focus on how well others do their job and whether I find them helpful overall. The former tends to be less of a concern in a casual setting, in which case it comes down to things like common interests, whether I notice a connection/spark, and whether they're an asshole or not.


----------



## Thalassa

The most exciting posts will be in this thread!


----------



## Inguz

fourtines said:


> The most exciting posts will be in this thread!


You mean that boringest?


----------



## Figure

Abraxas said:


> @_Zero11_,
> 
> Actually... kinda crazy you mention IEI, as I was just reading up on the intertype relations.
> 
> It _does_ seem to perfectly describe why I feel so intimidated around Bionic. Because if she's a LIE (which I'm pretty sure she is) then she'd be my "supervisor" and I'm the "supervisee."


Yeah, as the Supervisee you respect what the Supervisor says because it is mediated the way you understand best (functions 1 and 2), but their #1 nails you in your PoLR. It's nasty because there is attraction through likeness, but little the Supervisee does will ever really impress the Supervisor. The Supervisor is fine with it all minus some annoyance here and there, and actually tries to help the Supervisee because they see where they are weak and their shortcomings all seem like easy fixes, since their lead function comes naturally. 

That's one way I knew all of all types to base your argument on, SLI was a bad choice, because as an LIE you're either wrong or supervised, and Supervision would entail some level of respect for the Supervisor's POV, which clearly wasn't the case here. It has much more of the Mirror correctiveness to it. 

I think IEI is a good fit for you. 



> I still do. It's almost creepy how uneasy I feel posting here now. Fuck. I started posting here what... less than a week ago this thread was pinned? And now I'm like in a 180 degree turnabout.


Neah, stick around. You created the thread to begin with and unlike some of us are actually keeping rational tabs on what's going on


----------



## Inguz

Figure said:


> I think IEI is a good fit for you.


Or not, imo he is Gamma of some sort.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Inguz said:


> You mean that boringest?


 then how come we left all other quadras in the dust when it comes to page count?


----------



## Figure

Abraxas said:


> Hmm!
> 
> I guess I can see what you're saying. I just had to imagine, for instance, myself (if I am a LII, maybe you can help me out there, you've known me for a long time and we've interacted a lot) with a different enneagram, and I can see how it would not necessarily make a difference in terms of sociotype analysis.


Yeah, say you had an LII 2 and an IEI 2. Both will give to others to return, and may give the very same thing - but the way you take in the way they do it would feel very different. Then, if you compared an IEI 2 with an IEI 4, you'd get very different behavior, but have the same/a similar impression. 

Which is why, again, you have to be very careful separating the two systems, as you have to tell what is brought forward by motivation, and what over time defines the lines of the person's persona. I do think a lot of ILI descriptions are 5w4 ish and 9-ish. 



> E.g., a 2w1 could be a LII, but the approach they'd take to offering up new perspectives via logical abstraction would have more of a "love me, appreciate me" vibe to it, since they are trying to maintain that guise of the "helper" at all times. Kind of like, the good-natured professor or something?


Maybe. 2 isn't really a common type for Thinkers or Logical people, it's stereotypically Fe. Your example is probably a good one for an LII 2. I'm picturing an awkward person who tries to give you theories and such so they can better understand people to help them, but that's not the best picture. Same idea for an LII 8, it's rare and my picture of it is shaky. Definitely would deny anything that isn't internally consistent, would try and manipulate others, etc.



> It almost makes me want to write up an article describing variants of all the sociotypes within every single enneatype - but who am I kidding, fuck that much work. I'm way too lazy.


That would be really difficult. It works just as well to learn how to see what is motivational and what is informational. You can do it through comparing, again, innate form between people. Notice the common denominator between 2's of many Jung types, then notice the denominator between each of the 2's and another person of the same Jung type, not a 2. You'll notice patterns between the 2's despite their different communication, and the people of different Jung types, despite doing/wanting radically different things.


----------



## Inguz

FreeBeer:3982376 said:


> then how come we left all other quadras in the dust when it comes to page count?


Quality not quantity. I still think you're Delta though.


----------



## bombsaway

FreeBeer said:


> then how come we left all other quadras in the dust when it comes to page count?


Because people in other quadras have lives!

Or maybe just you have the most regularly active members. In fact, the reason alpha and beta have as many pages as they do is because of gammas posting in them. 
:laughing:


----------



## LibertyPrime

bombsaway said:


> Because people in other quadras have lives!
> 
> Or maybe just you have the most regularly active members. In fact, the reason alpha and beta have as many pages as they do is because of gammas posting in them.
> :laughing:


<.< hmm yeah, pretty much...what else am I gonna do at work for so long? >.> nothing much afterwards on weekdays either...:sad:lately stuff has gotten very boring, with nowhere near re-channeling current fruitless obsessions into more productive ones  also friends all moved or moving away into other countries on their own. Getting older sux sometimes...there is nobody interesting around...*pokes mushroom


----------



## bombsaway

FreeBeer said:


> <.< hmm yeah, pretty much...what else am I gonna do at work for so long? >.> nothing much afterwards on weekdays either...:sad:lately stuff has gotten very boring, with nowhere near re-channeling current fruitless obsessions into more productive ones  also friends all moved or moving away into other countries on their own. Getting older sux sometimes...there is nobody interesting around...*pokes mushroom



Well my daily post count has sky rocketed since being set free from University for the summer. I always start summer holidays with such high expectations and impossibly long reading lists and projects to do. And then I sit at my computer every day. 
:mellow:


----------



## Abraxas

@_Figure_,

So would you say then that a lot of the mistyping and people contradicting one another about the sociotype of other people (and their own) is due to a misunderstanding based on not knowing the difference between a sociotype with one enneatype and a sociotype with a different enneatype?

Also, I suppose I didn't consider that certain enneatypes would turn up more often in favor of certain sociotypes due to their very similar natures. I don't even know why I overlooked that, it seems rather obvious of course now that you've said it.

Essentially, what I said about socionics giving a description of motivation _does_ give a "complete" picture, but because the picture is aimed at "completeness" the emphasis on motivation gets washed out, diluted, and not explained very well. Enneagram is more useful in this particular area because it gives a better picture of one thing specifically, the _motivation_ for the _behavior_ of a certain type, whereas all these other systems (Socionics, Jung, MBTI) only focus on cognition. Which, in itself might be enough to _speculate_ about what kinds of behavior a type might exhibit, and their complex motivations for exhibiting it, but it is going to give us the whole-nine-yards, giving us _all possible variations_ instead of nailing down the _actual one_ that a person develops. Enneagram comes in here, because it narrows down the field and gives us the specific motivation for behavior that the sociotype developed.

Would you agree?

So, to give an example in my case, as a 5w4 I tend to come across (to myself and to others) as a gamma ILI most of the time, or maybe even a SEE (when I start to disintegrate into 7?) But, when I start playing to my strengths (using both my 5 nature and my Ni insight into the long-term to detach from everything and perceive the whole of a pattern unfolding within the greater context of past, present, and future) I find I suddenly recognize an opportunity to be productive and assert myself (integrate into 8) by lifting others out of their present emotional circumstances and letting them detach the same way I do, thus allowing them to find greater happiness by transcending their immediate concerns (using my Fe to assert Ni) and recognize the same repeating process I see.

I imagine an ILI 5w4 would be remarkably similar, except in one fine detail, which is that they use _Te_ rather than Fe to assert Ni, so instead of the focus being on a more humanitarian activity of helping others to feel better, they recognize the opportunity to be productive and assertive by applying their Ni through Te and improving impersonal systems, models, devices, etc which in turn improves society and the happiness of others indirectly.

And to complete the picture, if I were, for instance, a type 6 enneagram IEI, then my path of integration is towards 9 would lead me to apply my Ni through Fe as a means of relaxing and getting others to relax, since as a 6 my primary fear would be a kind of anxiety about being detached from others and losing my connection with the world. When, as a 6, I was disintegrating into 3, I would instead be ignoring my insight, choosing to conform to what I know will get me what I want immediately, essentially distorting my own identity in order to "fit in" and be admired. In which case, I could see an IEI type 6 also starting to act like an ESI, or maybe even a SEE as well, though I think an IEI 6 would be less likely to ever appear to be an ILI, since their insecurity isn't satisfied by intellectualism and investigation, it's satisfied through extreme conformity to authority (or extreme rebellion against it).

I think that's right? Am I missing anything?


----------



## Thalassa

Inguz said:


> You mean that boringest?


I don't think this is a word....

Anyway from what I understand, Deltas are the dull well behaved ones.


----------



## Thalassa

bombsaway said:


> Because people in other quadras have lives!
> 
> Or maybe just you have the most regularly active members. In fact, the reason alpha and beta have as many pages as they do is because of gammas posting in them.
> :laughing:


If you have a life, why are you postin in our thread?


----------



## Inguz

fourtines said:


> I don't think this is a word....


It is now! *Runs off laughing at how easy it was to bait a Gamma*


----------



## Immemorial

THE WABBAJACK.

a.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Svidrigailov said:


> THE WABBAJACK.
> 
> a.


That would be ILE ..hmmm...


----------



## TheBigT

FreeBeer said:


> That would be ILE ..hmmm...


Would an ILE really be "LOL SO RANDUMB XD?" The few ILEs I encounter seem to have the whole 3 appearance maintenance thing going on. That seems more like a SEE thing more than anything else.


----------



## Helios

TheBigT said:


> Would an ILE really be "LOL SO RANDUMB XD?" The few ILEs I encounter seem to have the whole 3 appearance maintenance thing going on. That seems more like a SEE thing more than anything else.


What you're describing there is the complete opposite of a type in the Gamma quadra (based on the descriptions anyway). Lol.


----------



## TheBigT

Ananael said:


> What you're describing there is the complete opposite of a type in the Gamma quadra (based on the descriptions anyway). Lol.


Gotcha!
Looks like I need to brush my Socionics up again, haven't used it since I trolled/experimented on my first year residents in a dorm program. I accidentally'd a floor, although the detente exercise and Ice Cream sandwiches helped mend things. I didn't realize allowing vacant leadership positions in a small group would lead an EIE, two SLEs and an ESE would want to kill each other within three minutes of having a balloon tied to their ankles.


----------



## Figure

Abraxas said:


> So would you say then that a lot of the mistyping and people contradicting one another about the sociotype of other people (and their own) is due to a misunderstanding based on not knowing the difference between a sociotype with one enneatype and a sociotype with a different enneatype?


It's definitely happened before, and will happen again. The behavioral descriptions have too much overlap to type without really immersing into more subtle archetypes than what you get with type behavior descriptions. 

That's really why I got cheesed off before. You can't say "that person talked about food, they're an Si lead." There are reasons other than socionics that someone may talk about food. You would want to compare the _way _they talk about it to the _way _an Si person talks about it, over a long period of time so you get a pattern. 



> Also, I suppose I didn't consider that certain enneatypes would turn up more often in favor of certain sociotypes due to their very similar natures. I don't even know why I overlooked that, it seems rather obvious of course now that you've said it.


Yeah, it's true for MBTI, why not socionics too? 




> Essentially, what I said about socionics giving a description of motivation _does_ give a "complete" picture, but because the picture is aimed at "completeness" the emphasis on motivation gets washed out, diluted, and not explained very well. Enneagram is more useful in this particular area because *it gives a better picture of one thing specifically, the motivation for the behavior of a certain type, whereas all these other systems (Socionics, Jung, MBTI) only focus on cognition. *Which, in itself might be enough to _speculate_ about what kinds of behavior a type might exhibit, and their complex motivations for exhibiting it, but it is going to give us the whole-nine-yards, giving us _all possible variations_ instead of nailing down the _actual one_ that a person develops. Enneagram comes in here, because it narrows down the field and gives us the specific motivation for behavior that the sociotype developed.
> 
> Would you agree?


Well, the enneagram is about what fears motivate your behavior, so yes. Your bolded part is the crux. 

I'll use myself as an example. I'm a 7w8, where the core type and wing are aggressive types - not aggressive in a "beat the shit out of you" way, but in that 7's demand their environment give stimulation to escape pain, and the 8 wing makes it pushy and more self-confident. That's the _why _on a very primitive level. The _how _is where socionics has a role, like you said - what kind of information is preferred to _deal with those motivations_

Perhaps Filatova (etc) never met an LII 8, or an LII 2 since they are rare types. Perhaps she did, and they were put into different labels or ignored altogether. If the enneagram wasn't considered in socionics theory and can be considered separate, we have to make our own conclusions as to what is innately the result of what. 

Again, the broader point being that you have to "triangulate" (to use Dario Nardi's word) between theories to match. At some point there is a convergence of archetypal cues into one organic person who has a set of "best fit" types. At some point our goblet of wine is more than red fluid - it is a complex product of many substances, processes, and scenarios. And be it so that we abuse it so as to drunken ourselves to the subtlety to it, we also lose sight of what we down. 



> So, to give an example in my case, as a 5w4 I tend to come across (to myself and to others) as a gamma ILI most of the time, or maybe even a SEE (when I start to disintegrate into 7?) But, when I start playing to my strengths (using both my 5 nature and my Ni insight into the long-term to detach from everything and perceive the whole of a pattern unfolding within the greater context of past, present, and future) I find I suddenly recognize an opportunity to be productive and assert myself (integrate into 8) by lifting others out of their present emotional circumstances and letting them detach the same way I do, thus allowing them to find greater happiness by transcending their immediate concerns (using my Fe to assert Ni) and recognize the same repeating process I see.
> 
> I imagine an ILI 5w4 would be remarkably similar, except in one fine detail, which is that they use _Te_ rather than Fe to assert Ni, so instead of the focus being on a more humanitarian activity of helping others to feel better, they recognize the opportunity to be productive and assertive by applying their Ni through Te and improving impersonal systems, models, devices, etc which in turn improves society and the happiness of others indirectly.
> 
> I think that's right? Am I missing anything?


That sounds like it's very possible.


----------



## Immemorial

FreeBeer said:


> That would be ILE ..hmmm...


I'm sorry, are you _typing _me?


----------



## LibertyPrime

Svidrigailov said:


> I'm sorry, are you _typing _me?


Not you...Sheogorath. That bastard lol.


----------



## Immemorial

FreeBeer said:


> Not you...Sheogorath. That bastard lol.


Oh, cool. I'm glad someone got the reference, then.

I'm not so sure that trying to type the God of Madness is a good idea.


----------



## Chesire Tower

ILI checking in.


----------



## raphaelnasc

ESI Here. IIs it just me or anyone else think that we have very little in common?


----------



## Mostly Harmless

EDIT: Never mind, I'm sorry for being a jerk.


----------



## Mostly Harmless

Gah, no delete, see above.


----------



## liminalthought

Mostly Harmless said:


> EDIT: Never mind, I'm sorry for being a jerk.


Déjà vu


----------



## Immemorial

Mostly Harmless said:


> EDIT: Never mind, I'm sorry for being a jerk.


Goddammit, now I'm wondering what you said before. -_-


----------



## liminalthought

Meanwhile listen to this

Ian Sutherland - Post Hoc by Ian Sutherland. on SoundCloud - Hear the world


----------



## Mostly Harmless

Svidrigailov said:


> Goddammit, now I'm wondering what you said before. -_-


I called this thread a snoozefest and posted this picture to liven things up. 










And then said "YOU'RE WELCOME."

But then I felt childish and edited it out.


----------



## liminalthought

^not sure what to say, but that probably means it is anti-snoozefest material.


----------



## Immemorial

Mostly Harmless said:


> I called this thread a snoozefest and posted this picture to liven things up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then said "YOU'RE WELCOME."
> 
> But then I felt childish and edited it out.


Should've kept the picture in.

- Looks more like a werewolf than a wolf.
- Not sure what's more concerning... Does Little Red Riding Hood know that a giant wolf is getting her ready for some action, or does she think that it's her grandmother? 

Oh gawd, Rule 34.


----------



## liminalthought

Svidrigailov said:


> Should've kept the picture in.
> 
> - Looks more like a werewolf than a wolf.
> - Not sure what's more concerning... Does Little Red Riding Hood know that a giant wolf is getting her ready for some action, or does she think that it's her grandmother?
> 
> Oh gawd, Rule 34.


No...can't possibly
grandma cosplay x grandaughter...no



I found it.


----------



## Immemorial

liminalthought said:


> No...can't possibly
> grandma cosplay x grandaughter...no
> 
> 
> 
> I found it.


I notice that you made sure to only search for one of those options. Either that, or you're now horribly scarred.


----------



## liminalthought

Svidrigailov said:


> I notice that you made sure to only search for one of those options. Either that, or you're now horribly scarred.


That's on special tab.:wink:


----------



## Immemorial

liminalthought said:


> That's on special tab.:wink:


There's a certain article on Cracked that features 6 examples of Rule 34. Something else for a special tab.


----------



## liminalthought

Svidrigailov said:


> There's a certain article on Cracked that features 6 examples of Rule 34. Something else for a special tab.


No, please, no, no more special tab...


----------



## Abraxas

Lol.

She probably just had/has shit to do.


----------



## Figure

FreeBeer said:


> ...well it was just a tease and not serious -.- awww. Maybe Te doms are too logical and practical to have stabby-teasy back and forth fun with. *sigh*  what I like about you guys is the directness (well sort of) at least its easy to figure out where one stands...guess not >.<...I'm delta damn it, I'm supposed to be the "serious one" not gammas.


Perhaps she realized you were her Benefactor.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Figure said:


> Perhaps she realized you were her Benefactor.


o.o but that is just theory mumbo jumbo, plus it wasn't really a problem <.< till someone brought it up lol (I kind of forgot about this ._. until @NameUser brought it up)


----------



## Nyu

I think I belong here, but it is late and I am tired. Hopefully not delusional...


I just completed the socionics online Ted and was classified as INTp or ILI. Briefly read through the description, sounds about right and I may be back or maybe not. I haven't decided if I like socionics yet but I am here... That was lame.. Go gamma?


----------



## monemi

I've had a few goes at figuring out my socionics type. Just found I'm probably SEE, then read the first page here. Most of the ESTP's are SEE and 7 types. Why do I even bother trying to figure this shit out? I should just find out what most ESTP's are and skip the whole process. 

It would have saved me time. Although, where are the SEE's? I see one. There's more right?


----------



## Entropic

Compared to the other quadras, especially beta and alpha who value Fe, gamma is what can be considered the most "serious" because how the entire preferred functional stacking lends itself to a "down to business" approach that other types from other quadras may have difficulties understanding and accepting.

People need to put quadra descriptions in the right context. Furthermore, people need to realize most descriptions on wikisocion are fail.


----------



## Inguz

ephemereality said:


> People need to put quadra descriptions in the right context. Furthermore, people need to realize most descriptions on wikisocion are fail.


Elaborate.


----------



## Entropic

Inguz said:


> Elaborate.


1. People need to put descriptions in context because gamma quadra only appears as grimsour to say, alphas and to a degree, betas, less so to deltas. The reason why alphas may think gammas appear that way is because all their IMs are entirely devalued. Similarly, alphas appear as stupid, pointless and goofy to gammas. 

2. Wikisocion descriptions are fail because they are written by people who may not necessarily possess as great a knowledge about the types they think they do for various reasons. The ILI one for example. It's most likely written by aestrivex who self-types as an ILI even though he is more likely to be an alpha LII, and the end result is simply a subpar description that doesn't capture the reality of ILI existence and cognition at all. Type descriptions are best written by people who are that type, since they understand the reality of their type the best.

If you wish to compare, here is my description that is yet to be finished: 


* *




White Intuition - Ni
ILIs operate with Ni base, making them naturally attuned to detecting hidden trends, meanings and patterns in the world around them. With intuition being introverted, the ILI is capable of reviewing long-term patterns from the past and making predictions into the present and future. This is because Ni operates similarly to Si, in that Ni needs to build models of the world by reviewing data over longer time periods. This differs to Ne base found in ILEs and IEEs who are attuned to possibilities in the present.

Introverted intuition could be best described as finding purpose and meaning beyond what can be immediately experienced that links to greater universal but fundamental truths of how the world functions. Someone with base Ni would for instance look at a clock but what they see and experience is not the clock itself but how the clock is representative of the concept of time. Further examination of the clock and the concept of time could lead to the search for greater and deeper universal truths such as how time controls the concepts of life and death and the apparent cyclical nature of the universe itself.

Ni being a perceptive function allows for information to be stored, reviewed and distilled over time into grander, universal concepts. It is this distillation process of information that allows the ILI to make predictions into the future, and it is this distillation that associates Ni with time. By time one ought to not confuse Ni with the concept of time itself either as a standard of measurement or how we understand change and movement in the physical world, but by how Ni detects and connects to universal patterns in the sense-world. It is therefore more accurate to say that Ni is timeless -- it exists outside the detected space-time continuum. It is thus this ethereal existence that allows the Ni base type to connect to time, and one can argue that Ni is capable of seeing through time itself due to its ability to detect universal concepts and patterns that are true regardless of context specifics. An example of such pattern is that one must first be born in order to be considered a living being. 

It is not always easy or possible for the Ni base type to express his or her conceptual understandings of the world due to Ni’s introverted nature. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, introverts have a greater difficulty in general to communicate with the external world due to the how their information metabolism operates. Communication with the external world relies on the acceptance of general principles. These general principles are different to the universal concepts Ni is attuned to, and expression of the universal requires the ILI to find matching external general and logical principles in order to convey the Ni visions properly.

Secondly, being of the IP temperament, the ILI tends to prefer observation over judgement. This is due to the nature of irrationality itself leading the ILI to mostly being attuned to perception data. Sorting through this data requires the active use of a judgement function, making it sometimes seem as if the ILI has troubles coming to conclusions or making decisions. Because Ni operates on detecting patterns over longer time-periods, it is possible for the ILI to find it difficult to sometimes come to definitive conclusions about the state of the world. The ILI may experience a sense of uncertainty in trusting his or her own judgements, feeling that unless a definite pattern has been formed, it is very difficult if nigh impossible to tell the true outcome of things. This could to the outsider look like unnecessary passive observation and as if the ILI does not fully know what it is he or she wants or desires and an extroverted judgement type might even experience the ILI as aimless or without a definite goal. To the eyes of the outsider, it is thus easy to mistake the ILI as a recluse who tends to drift through the world without any apparent purpose or larger life goal, predominantly defined by his or her inertia and inability to create action in the present moment even though the ILI deep down seeks a way to engage with the world in an active, rather than passive, manner.

However, to the ILI, such goals and purposes are impossible to attain without first feeling that he or she fully knows and understands what is to come due to the ILI always being guided by his or her Ni visions. Instead, decisions of importance tend to coalesce over time, resulting in a drive or move that is experienced as inevitable. As such the true nature of the irrational temperament can be observed as outsiders might wonder why the sudden movement or need for action that seems to come out of nowhere, being unaware that this spur of action has in fact been a long on-going, internal process for the ILI.

Thirdly, leading with introverted intuition means complete psychological rejection of the sense-world. All energy is focused inward, constantly distilling whatever vision the Ni base type happened to be interested in at any given moment. Intuition, working by detecting archetypal hidden meanings, is naturally difficult to explain or convey because it does not work with what is tangible, concrete and can be directly observed or experienced. This might lead to the impression that ILIs predominantly “live in their own heads” in that not only do they seem to lack interest in the world around them, but the esoteric nature of intuition might be entirely lost upon those who lack this natural ability to connect and detect hidden meanings and patterns in the sense-world. The end result might be that the Ni base type is experienced as unrealistic, unpragmatic or simply not seen as making much sense in conversation. It is therefore easy to see why the Ni base type requires the use of an extroverted judging function to be able to fully express and realize their visions in the present world. 

Black Logic - Te
The creative function of the ILI is Te, making the ILI attuned to external logical systems and facts. The ILI utilizes Te to shape his or her internal models generated by Ni, providing it with much needed structure and stability. Information is primarily sought through the use of Te, making Te the information-gathering function for the ILI. The factual nature of Te will help to ground Ni to observeable reality. As such, Te serves as the ILI’s contact function and the ILI will primarily choose to engage the world through the lens of Te by actively seeking and gathering data, primarily by referencing to existing logical structures and systems and facts. Examples of such models as used in everyday life are for instance the various metric systems that surround us. In this sense the ILI is not much different to those with base Te, except that with Te being located in the creative position, this use is not always as consistent and the ILI emphasizes less of a need to refer to these systems when explaining their models about how the world oeprates. 

Te, being an extroverted information element, emphasizes efficiency and accuracy over internal logical consistency. A typical example of Ni operating with Te would be to consider what is the most effective plan in order to solve a problem. Consider for instance that the ILI is told to find the cheapest but most efficient computer on the market. The ILI would immediately solve the problem with Ni and Te -- what is the purpose of the computer? What function(s) is it supposed to serve? Perhaps the purpose of the computer is to be able to generate complex calculations. The ILI would then seek out information with Te -- what kind of hardware and software is best suited for a computer meant to generate complex calculations? After extensive research the ILI would finally have all the answers he or she needs in order to buy such a computer. It is important to note that this should not be confused with the nature of Se that helps to realize goals in the present, through action and the manipulation of physical objects in real-time. The action of buying the computer would be the results of Se, whereas the realization of what software and hardware is required for the computer to run smoothly and be the most cost-efficient is the logical conclusions of Te. 

With Te being oriented towards the objective world, one can thus say that the ILI is more inclined towards what could be referred to as realistic pragmatism. Realistic pragmatism can be understood as the need for practical application and seeking logical and realizable logical results. Every action needs to have its logical purpose and effect. One does not go buy food for the pleasure of enjoying food, but one buys food to achieve the logical result of restocking food because we cannot live without food. 

Black Ethics - Fe
The function of Fe in the superego block makes Fe the point of least resistance (PoLR) or the vulnerable function for the ILI. Fe could be described as being attuned to the emotional atmosphere between oneself and people and provides with the ability to be sensitive to how to affect this atmosphere in various ways, both positively and negatively. In such a sense it is possible to view Fe as an element striving towards creating a sense of emotional harmony which emphasizes the connection between subject(s) rather than their internal emotional states. 

What thus separates Fe from Fi is that Fe attunes itself to the emotional tones and atmospheres in a collective sense. Fe perceives the total emotional harmony created by each subject and this creates an objective emotional tone. Being attuned to Fe means being able to detect how every individual generates their own emotional tone, and how each tone blends into a greater emotional tone that exists separate from the individuals. This is why Fe is considered an extroverted element because it focuses on the extroverted nature of emotional tones and atmospheres rather than the introverted aspect of these tones and how each individual perceives these tones in a personal sense.

As an example, an Fe type would be keenly aware of the collective sense of sadness present at a funeral, generated by all the funeral participants. This awareness of extroverted ethics makes it possible to manipulate it in various ways based on standards of appropriateness or inapproriatenessso if someone is found to express an emotional atmosphere not suited when contrasted to this collective atmosphere, the Fe type might consider it important to correct this individual's behavior to conform. 

Because Fe is the PoLR for the ILI, the ILI is naturally resistant to such an ethical perspective. Due to the ILI valuing Te over Fe, the ILI will feel incredibly incompetent when it comes to all matters concerning Fe. When the ILI is reminded to consider an Fe perspective, there is often a sense of internal refusal involved. While the level of discomfort caused by the PoLR varies between the subtypes, many ILIs will often either openly admit their incompetence utilizing Fe as a cognitive perspective or perhaps deny their inability and attempt to prove how capable they are. However, because Fe is not a valued information element such attempts to sustain Fe as a perspective will often result in failure in the long run, and outside observers might notice the obvious incompetence in this area, making the perspective being expressed in an overall very clumsy manner. There is therefore often much frustration surrounding the PoLR, where praise might be seen as extremely positive but criticism might either end up as open admittance of its true nature or complete denial of its validity. 

[(Patrick) For example, an ILI who denies their incompetence with Fe may create a semblance of Fe through expressing sentiments that appear fitting for the current situation. While ILIs typically have little trouble predicting what emotional tones are fitting, their ability to create these emotions themselves is lacking. Moreover, even when successful in fueling an emotional atmosphere, ILIs often feel empty and powerless to push their own agenda through Fe. Pulling deeply on Fe obscures the ILI’s natural Fi agenda, making the proper use of this function for their own purposes very difficult.]

White Sensorics - Si


White Ethics - Fi
Black Sensorics - Se

Black Intuition - Ne
White Logic - Ti




Last but not least, people need to realize that descriptions are just that. One can perhaps glean an idea of what a type is from a description, but the problem that I find is that people try to relate to the description as if it were them and that is just doing it wrong. A description will never be you unless it is about you. Too much focus on external traits and manners and not enough focus on what actually constitutes a type and how they relate to this idea of type rather than, Am I outgoing and social or more of an introverted kind of person? It doesn't say anything because there can be so many reasons why this is.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

monemi said:


> I've had a few goes at figuring out my socionics type. Just found I'm probably SEE, then read the first page here. Most of the ESTP's are SEE and 7 types. Why do I even bother trying to figure this shit out? I should just find out what most ESTP's are and skip the whole process.
> 
> It would have saved me time. Although, where are the SEE's? I see one. There's more right?


I highly doubt you're Ni-seeking. XD I agree with Kamishi; Delta is probably a good fit.


----------



## Entropic

@monemi, You really seem to be more of an Ne type to me. Delta is a possibility.


----------



## monemi

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> I highly doubt you're Ni-seeking. XD I agree with Kamishi; Delta is probably a good fit.





ephemereality said:


> @_monemi_, You really seem to be more of an Ne type to me. Delta is a possibility.


I didn't see a good fit there either. 

I have my doubts that Enneagram and Socionics having any relevance to me. It would be nice if I actually recognized myself in this stuff.


----------



## Entropic

monemi said:


> I didn't see a good fit there either.
> 
> I have my doubts that Enneagram and Socionics having any relevance to me. It would be nice if I actually recognized myself in this stuff.


What is a good fit and how do you type yourself? Do you do it around descriptions or some other method?


----------



## monemi

ephemereality said:


> What is a good fit and how do you type yourself? Do you do it around descriptions or some other method?


MBTI, I took tests. It was really easy straight forward. Good and bad, I could see myself in a lot of it. 

Enneagram, I took the test came up with 7w8 first try. I was sort of meh, but went with what the results were. I got questioned by a poster on the wing 8. I took the test again. Came up with 7w6. Sounded a little better than wing 8, but didn't fit any better than wing 8. Then realized 7 wasn't particularly good fit anyway. Read over other Enneagram's. Concluded I didn't have a better answer. Took the test a couple more times over the weeks. More 7w6 and 7w8. I'm not sold on it for me but maybe I'm biased. Ultimately, there are things more important to me and there's only so much thought I'm willing to devote to this stuff. 

Tried taking Socionics test. Trying to answer those questions is like hammering nails up my finger nails. WTF is that? I gave up, posted the test answers up to the point that I got and left it on the typing help board and washed my hands of it. A couple of people tried to help. Seeing as they were willing to put effort into that I wasn't, I tried to work with them. There's no way in hell I'm going to go through the socionics questionaire. Whoever wrote it hates me. The closest fit was the SEE and now you're saying that's wrong. It sounds like it's a waste of my time then because I'm getting nowhere even with help.


----------



## Entropic

monemi said:


> MBTI, I took tests. It was really easy straight forward. Good and bad, I could see myself in a lot of it.
> 
> Enneagram, I took the test came up with 7w8 first try. I was sort of meh, but went with what the results were. I got questioned by a poster on the wing 8. I took the test again. Came up with 7w6. Sounded a little better than wing 8, but didn't fit any better than wing 8. Then realized 7 wasn't particularly good fit anyway. Read over other Enneagram's. Concluded I didn't have a better answer. Took the test a couple more times over the weeks. More 7w6 and 7w8. I'm not sold on it for me but maybe I'm biased. Ultimately, there are things more important to me and there's only so much thought I'm willing to devote to this stuff.
> 
> Tried taking Socionics test. Trying to answer those questions is like hammering nails up my finger nails. WTF is that? I gave up, posted the test answers up to the point that I got and left it on the typing help board and washed my hands of it. A couple of people tried to help. Seeing as they were willing to put effort into that I wasn't, I tried to work with them. There's no way in hell I'm going to go through the socionics questionaire. Whoever wrote it hates me. The closest fit was the SEE and now you're saying that's wrong. It sounds like it's a waste of my time then because I'm getting nowhere even with help.


Why rely so much on test results? Why not you know, read up on the theory and gain a firm grasp of that instead and then try to figure out how you fit into the system the way it's presented? Test results will never make sense usually. 

And if you don't like the socionics questionnaire, especially aconite's that is the longer one, chances are you are _not_ and Ni type then. It's very Ni-focused, the way it's written. That alone suggests a preference towards Ne. 

Also, the way you kind of despair doesn't really sound like 7 logic to me but seems 4-informed some way, shape or form, though I have no real firm idea of your ennatype at this point in time.


----------



## monemi

ephemereality said:


> Why rely so much on test results? Why not you know, read up on the theory and gain a firm grasp of that instead and then try to figure out how you fit into the system the way it's presented? Test results will never make sense usually.
> 
> And if you don't like the socionics questionnaire, especially aconite's that is the longer one, chances are you are _not_ and Ni type then. It's very Ni-focused, the way it's written. That alone suggests a preference towards Ne.
> 
> Also, the way you kind of despair doesn't really sound like 7 logic to me but seems 4-informed some way, shape or form, though I have no real firm idea of your ennatype at this point in time.


Not despair. I go after the things I want. After giving Enneagram and Socionics a shot, I'm realizing it's taking more effort than I'm willing to put in. I don't care enough to put the work in. You can tell me I'm a 4, 9 or whatever number you feel like. If I'd known I wouldn't get a quick, easy answer, I wouldn't have taken any tests in the first place.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

monemi said:


> Not despair. I go after the things I want. After giving Enneagram and Socionics a shot, I'm realizing it's taking more effort than I'm willing to put in. I don't care enough to put the work in. You can tell me I'm a 4, 9 or whatever number you feel like. If I'd known I wouldn't get a quick, easy answer, I wouldn't have taken any tests in the first place.


I'm just asking out of curiosity, but if you're not willing to take the time to introspect, then why are you interested in personality and have over 1,000 posts on this site?


----------



## monemi

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> I'm just asking out of curiosity, but if you're not willing to take the time to introspect, then why are you interested in personality and have over 1,000 posts on this site?


I'm not looking to become an expert. Certain aspects I'm trying to get a better understanding and see if I can use within my own life. If it's overly complicated and I'm not going to analyze it. The payoff isn't worth the investment. Is there anything wrong with wanting a basic understanding on a subject you're unfamiliar with? As long as I don't attempt to give any therapy I see it as expanding my knowledge base.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

monemi said:


> I'm not looking to become an expert. Certain aspects I'm trying to get a better understanding and see if I can use within my own life. If it's overly complicated and I'm not going to analyze it. The payoff isn't worth the investment. Is there anything wrong with wanting a basic understanding on a subject you're unfamiliar with? As long as I don't attempt to give any therapy I see it as expanding my knowledge base.


Is it just me or is every character of this paragraph a black square?


----------



## Entropic

monemi said:


> I'm not looking to become an expert. Certain aspects I'm trying to get a better understanding and see if I can use within my own life. If it's overly complicated and I'm not going to analyze it. The payoff isn't worth the investment. Is there anything wrong with wanting a basic understanding on a subject you're unfamiliar with? As long as I don't attempt to give any therapy I see it as expanding my knowledge base.


I think we have a different understanding of what "basic" means. And learning about yourself means some kind of investment because it takes time and effort to learn about yourself. If you want simple quick fixes, there's Keirsey.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

ephemereality said:


> I think we have a different understanding of what "basic" means. And learning about yourself means some kind of investment because it takes time and effort to learn about yourself. If you want simple quick fixes, there's Keirsey.


The MBTI dichotomies are much more empirical.


----------



## monemi

ephemereality said:


> I think we have a different understanding of what "basic" means. And learning about yourself means some kind of investment because it takes time and effort to learn about yourself. If you want simple quick fixes, there's Keirsey.


The MBTI seems more basic to me. The other two, while mildly interesting, are messy. If I need to dig that deep, I consider it time for me to seek professional help. That's what they're paid for.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

monemi said:


> The MBTI seems more basic to me. The other two, while mildly interesting, are messy. If I need to dig that deep, I consider it time for me to seek professional help. That's what they're paid for.


It wouldn't be called introspecting if it didn't involve _you_ gaining an understanding of yourself.


----------



## monemi

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> It wouldn't be called introspecting if it didn't involve _you_ gaining an understanding of yourself.


Introspection rarely delivers any answers and frequently leaves me more confused than when I started. Like I said, that stuff is messy. It's like a CV Joint Axle Replacement times 10. I'd rather slam a car door closed on my hand.


----------



## Entropic

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> The MBTI dichotomies are much more empirical.


MBTI as a school of thought is too divergent, though. One of the things that bother me with the MBTI system, because there is no real unified way to apply it.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

ephemereality said:


> MBTI as a school of thought is too divergent, though. One of the things that bother me with the MBTI system, because there is no real unified way to apply it.


So find the most rational way to apply it?


----------



## Entropic

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> So find the most rational way to apply it?


I do. It tends to lead to most people disagreeing with how I understand the system. I've been thinking of a way to try to streamline the various ideas presented into a more unified idea but frankly, the entire system is so shoddy and messed up I really don't feel there's much point to bother. Then it would be far simpler to point people back to Jung, anyway.


----------



## liminalthought

monemi said:


> I didn't see a good fit there either.
> 
> I have my doubts that Enneagram and Socionics having any relevance to me. It would be nice if I actually recognized myself in this stuff.


ILE-Ne subtype


----------



## itsme45

liminalthought said:


> ILE-Ne subtype


Why ILE-Ne? 




ephemereality said:


> And if you don't like the socionics questionnaire, especially aconite's that is the longer one, chances are you are _not_ and Ni type then. It's very Ni-focused, the way it's written. That alone suggests a preference towards Ne.


She meant sociotype socionics test, not the questionnaire. But yes in her typeme thread she already got the comment that the tests are Ni focused.




ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Is it just me or is every character of this paragraph a black square?


Not just you. =D


----------



## liminalthought

Deja Vu? 

Theory: 
Given,

itsme45 is ISTp
ThatOneWeirdGuy is INTj

Figure is ISTp (_easy, tiger_)
Abraxas is INTj

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Figure said:


> Abraxas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's right? Am I missing anything?
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like it's very possible.
Click to expand...

LII asks for confirmation on theory, SLI confirms



itsme45 said:


> ThatOneWeirdGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it just me or is every character of this paragraph a black square?
> 
> 
> 
> Not just you. =D
Click to expand...

LII asks for confirmation on theory, SLI confirms

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Self:
How Relations of Benefit manifest between LII and SLI. Ne and Si connection. Many other connections can be inferred in retrospect. 

hopefully I don't get burned at the stake again, no witch hunts today please.


----------



## itsme45

liminalthought said:


> Deja Vu?
> 
> Theory:
> Given,
> 
> itsme45 is ISTp
> ThatOneWeirdGuy is INTj
> 
> Figure is ISTp (_easy, tiger_)
> Abraxas is INTj
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> LII asks for confirmation on theory, SLI confirms
> 
> 
> 
> LII asks for confirmation on theory, SLI confirms
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> For Self:
> How Relations of Benefit manifest between LII and SLI. Ne and Si connection. Many other connections can be inferred in retrospect.
> 
> hopefully I don't get burned at the stake again, no witch hunts today please.


 SLI? Where do you get SLI? Hey how about you post in my typeme thread about how you got to that conclusion about SLI? Assuming it's more than just this one single interaction with ThatOneWeirdGuy. And only if you want to avoid getting burnt at the stake 

Abraxas btw might be LII yeah, I mean I thought of it myself. I dunno


----------



## Narcotic

Te-LIE reporting in.


----------



## Entropic

liminalthought said:


> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> LII asks for confirmation on theory, SLI confirms
> 
> 
> 
> LII asks for confirmation on theory, SLI confirms
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> For Self:
> How Relations of Benefit manifest between LII and SLI. Ne and Si connection. Many other connections can be inferred in retrospect.


That is one shitty analysis. So just because two people agree it means they have for a large part, a positive intertype relationship? 

Also, Abraxas' LII typing is BS imo. I always thought gamma ILI made far more sense over his IEI and LII typings. itsme45 is clearly not an SLI. For one, she is very clearly an Fe type that stands out whenever she makes posts like that. What matters is why she makes the post -- notice the emotional atmosphere she puts into them adding smileys and such. Fe-valuing, making sure the atmosphere is nice and friendly. Not because I am saying Fi types are devoid of smiley making, but when they make smileys, it has a somewhat different character. It represents their personal feelings more than trying to validate the feelings of the other. 

I never saw any reason to doubt itme45's SLE typing and I still don't. She very much fits the definition of an SLE.


----------



## liminalthought

ephemereality said:


> That is one shitty analysis. So just because two people agree it means they have for a large part, a positive intertype relationship?
> 
> Also, Abraxas' LII typing is BS imo. I always thought gamma ILI made far more sense over his IEI and LII typings. itsme45 is clearly not an SLI. For one, she is very clearly an Fe type that stands out whenever she makes posts like that. What matters is why she makes the post -- notice the emotional atmosphere she puts into them adding smileys and such. Fe-valuing, making sure the atmosphere is nice and friendly. Not because I am saying Fi types are devoid of smiley making, but when they make smileys, it has a somewhat different character. It represents their personal feelings more than trying to validate the feelings of the other.
> 
> I never saw any reason to doubt itme45's SLE typing and I still don't. She very much fits the definition of an SLE.


You'll get there, in time. Think it over with the things you have available for you to recall.


----------



## Entropic

liminalthought said:


> You'll get there, in time. Think it over with the things you have available for you to recall.


No need for me to think something over I've already thought over.


----------



## liminalthought

ephemereality said:


> No need for me to think something over I've already thought over.


But you can't help but to do anything but think it over. So many think overs have happened already. I think over what you think over and I think you think I don't have enough think overs, which is the same thing I've thought over about you.


----------



## Entropic

liminalthought said:


> But you can't help but to do anything but think it over. So many think overs have happened already. I think over what you think over and I think you think I don't have enough think overs, which is the same thing I've thought over about you.


Good for you.


----------



## liminalthought

ephemereality said:


> Good for you.


Not at all, the good was made for you.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

liminalthought said:


> Deja Vu?
> 
> Theory:
> Given,
> 
> itsme45 is ISTp
> ThatOneWeirdGuy is INTj
> 
> Figure is ISTp (_easy, tiger_)
> Abraxas is INTj
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> LII asks for confirmation on theory, SLI confirms
> 
> 
> 
> LII asks for confirmation on theory, SLI confirms
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> For Self:
> How Relations of Benefit manifest between LII and SLI. Ne and Si connection. Many other connections can be inferred in retrospect.
> 
> hopefully I don't get burned at the stake again, no witch hunts today please.


I was more trying to tell monemi I thought she was a Te-base than ask for confirmation.


----------



## Entropic

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> I was more trying to tell monemi I thought she was a Te-base than ask for confirmation.


Though I personally experience that her impatience to part deal with logical systems at all that are of a more complex nature kind of speaks against her being a logical type. I also intuit feeling in ego block but I don't quite have any concrete way to explain why I think so more than vibes, but I lean IEE/SEE at this point.

When I think about it, I might lean more toward SEE as of this moment.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

ephemereality said:


> Though I personally experience that her impatience to part deal with logical systems at all that are of a more complex nature kind of speaks against her being a logical type. I also intuit feeling in ego block but I don't quite have any concrete way to explain why I think so more than vibes, but I lean IEE/SEE at this point.
> 
> When I think about it, I might lean more toward SEE as of this moment.


I would hardly call socionics tests or reading material logical. But, Se base would be my next guess. And Te/Fi valuing is a given, IMO.


----------



## Entropic

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> I would hardly call socionics tests or reading material logical. But, Se base would be my next guess. And Te/Fi valuing is a given, IMO.


I actually think the most given is extroversion, but after that yes, Fi-Te. And well no, reading up might not be but it is still a logical system she has to deal with and ultimately abstract in order to make sense of it, but she's quite clear on that she is not going to invest the time for it. She's also quite clearly expressed that she seeks simpler explanations that are easier and quicker to digest that to me at least suggests Te in super-id and I think it's quite a good example of Te hidden agenda. 

Why do you feel Si dual-seek seems more rational than Ni? I think I need to see more to really formulate a real opinion on the matter. At the moment I am mostly hunching.


----------



## liminalthought

What do you think of this? (No challenge, just asking for your thoughts) 

(from the ILE description, the basic one from Wikisocion)

8.  Extraverted LogicThough the ILE can demonstrate a head for practical or efficient reasoning, particularly in conjunction with the ignoring function , he will typically resort to it only to sell the merits of his ideas. The ILE is more concerned with the possibility of creating than in finding the best way to do something.
When the demand exists, the ILE will deliver a practical and realistic rationale or solution, but be prepared for a tack that is singularly unorthodox. The ILE will not be boxed in by the rules of convention, rather he will actively search for a new way to perform a task. In this way, ILEs are often seen cutting corners. To others, this may be seen as snubbing the rules, and rightfully so, because the ILE dislikes the idea of a preset way of performing a task. It is counter-intuitive to their Ego. To the ILE, they are more likely playfully reinventing convention in order to show how their skills are best used or perhaps to prove that their manner of approaching the task surpasses that of -ego types in efficiency and practicality.


Could this be why we're seeing black squares? I've been following her posts, she doesn't seem to be anchored to Te at all, but we've seen it appear here. 

Maybe it's no coincidence Kamishi noticed Ne before. If she's IEE or SEE, I can't find any hint of Fi. I'm think her interests lie in logical forms of information. So I lean towards ILE


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

ephemereality said:


> I actually think the most given is extroversion, but after that yes, Fi-Te. And well no, reading up might not be but it is still a logical system she has to deal with and ultimately abstract in order to make sense of it, but she's quite clear on that she is not going to invest the time for it. She's also quite clearly expressed that she seeks simpler explanations that are easier and quicker to digest that to me at least suggests Te in super-id and I think it's quite a good example of Te hidden agenda.
> 
> Why do you feel Si dual-seek seems more rational than Ni? I think I need to see more to really formulate a real opinion on the matter. At the moment I am mostly hunching.


I didn't type her as a Si dual-seek and I never said my typing was more rational. Typing people over the internet isn't precise, which bugs me. Your educated guess of SEE is as good as my Te-base one (even though i doubt she has ethics in her ego) I also meant I would hardly call some parts of socionics logical. 

Do you have any reasoning behind her being Ni-dual seeking? It seems like her PoLR to me.


----------



## liminalthought

ephemereality said:


> Why do you feel Si dual-seek seems more rational than Ni? I think I need to see more to really formulate a real opinion on the matter. At the moment I am mostly hunching.


More hunching, please.


----------



## liminalthought

By the way, have you seen this before? 

Vocabulary - Wikisocion


Maybe this can provide clearer clues. I'm going through her posts and comparing them with this side by side, hunting down any revealing phrases. 

From what I've seen, the Vocab points to ILE.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

XD Related statements of Fe:



amazingly awesome
sooooo cool
ineffably cool
superly duperly nifty 
GAAAAAAAAH
This is gonna be so dang sweet. :-D
we're very very very excited!
you've got to see this painting- it's totally 'nutzo'.
he usually dies laughing
...and lived in the pits of depression
I was shocked and overjoyed to hear of that
You're just so beautiful! [blows a kiss]
Pretty mellow.
I had a freaking crush on him!
I don't want to criticize her [in person] because I'm afraid of hurting her feelings. I can't do it even if she's going to run out of business at this rate.
play it cool
He's usually really easy to cheer up.
make an ass of oneself
[boisterous laughter]

Comically true in my experience.


----------



## liminalthought

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> XD Related statements of Fe:
> 
> 
> 
> amazingly awesome
> sooooo cool
> ineffably cool
> superly duperly nifty
> GAAAAAAAAH
> This is gonna be so dang sweet. :-D
> we're very very very excited!
> you've got to see this painting- it's totally 'nutzo'.
> he usually dies laughing
> ...and lived in the pits of depression
> I was shocked and overjoyed to hear of that
> You're just so beautiful! [blows a kiss]
> Pretty mellow.
> I had a freaking crush on him!
> I don't want to criticize her [in person] because I'm afraid of hurting her feelings. I can't do it even if she's going to run out of business at this rate.
> play it cool
> He's usually really easy to cheer up.
> make an ass of oneself
> [boisterous laughter]
> 
> Comically true in my experience.


The whole article is really entertaining, I looked at it for hours remembering what I could recall from my experiences with all the function bases.


----------



## Entropic

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> I didn't type her as a Si dual-seek and I never said my typing was more rational. Typing people over the internet isn't precise, which bugs me. Your educated guess of SEE is as good as my Te-base one (even though i doubt she has ethics in her ego) I also meant I would hardly call some parts of socionics logical.
> 
> Do you have any reasoning behind her being Ni-dual seeking? It seems like her PoLR to me.


What I see in her now that I've got a bit more perspective of her thinking, seems to match the forthright manner of SEE and to a degree also, ESI, quite well. Granted, I haven't engaged any LSE that I can think of, but she would still have the categorical thinking of egoic Te that I am not sure I am seeing. Most of her posts seem to be based more around an idea of what fits her or not but never do we see her making a logical argument for or against what does seem to fit or doesn't fit. Even though she may not have read up much on the system she should at least be familiar with its basic tenets considering that she has read the descriptions and know what the functions are, but she never made logical arguments about this. Instead it's more about that she doesn't feel that type doesn't fit and that type doesn't fit and so on that is more in line with Fi than Te in ego position in my opinion. 

And why do you feel Ni is PoLR?

As for that Wikisocion article, I related a lot to the Ne and to a degree to Ni but some of the Ni options were just so focused on prediction and I honestly don't think much in terms of prediction at all. Would that suddenly make me an Ne type?


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

ephemereality said:


> What I see in her now that I've got a bit more perspective of her thinking, seems to match the forthright manner of SEE and to a degree also, ESI, quite well. Granted, I haven't engaged any LSE that I can think of, but she would still have the categorical thinking of egoic Te that I am not sure I am seeing. Most of her posts seem to be based more around an idea of what fits her or not but never do we see her making a logical argument for or against what does seem to fit or doesn't fit. Even though she may not have read up much on the system she should at least be familiar with its basic tenets considering that she has read the descriptions and know what the functions are, but she never made logical arguments about this. Instead it's more about that she doesn't feel that type doesn't fit and that type doesn't fit and so on that is more in line with Fi than Te in ego position in my opinion.
> 
> And why do you feel Ni is PoLR?


You never said anything about Ni-suggestive, but I think she is Ni-PoLR because of her disliking for abstract things, thinking about the future, and stating "they hate me!" in reference to Ni-bases.


----------



## liminalthought

ephemereality said:


> What I see in her now that I've got a bit more perspective of her thinking, seems to match the forthright manner of SEE and to a degree also, ESI, quite well. Granted, I haven't engaged any LSE that I can think of, but she would still have the categorical thinking of egoic Te that I am not sure I am seeing. Most of her posts seem to be based more around an idea of what fits her or not but never do we see her making a logical argument for or against what does seem to fit or doesn't fit. Even though she may not have read up much on the system she should at least be familiar with its basic tenets considering that she has read the descriptions and know what the functions are, but she never made logical arguments about this. Instead it's more about that she doesn't feel that type doesn't fit and that type doesn't fit and so on that is more in line with Fi than Te in ego position in my opinion.
> 
> And why do you feel Ni is PoLR?
> 
> As for that Wikisocion article, I related a lot to the Ne and to a degree to Ni but some of the Ni options were just so focused on prediction and I honestly don't think much in terms of prediction at all. Would that suddenly make me an Ne type?


I don't see any of this: 

(introverted ethics)


related words
sentiment
relate to, sympathize with
relationship (both figurative and literal)
support (i.e. supporting something)
community
share
to bring (people) together
to open up (figurative) 


I see her yearning more for things that make sense in this fashion:

(introverted logic)


related words
logical, systematic, consistent, coherent
system, scheme, ordering, classification, grouping, framework, structure, law, rule
correlation, similarity, distinction, compatibility
controversial, compliant
denote, define, mean, signify, designate, refer to, constitute, correspond to, pertain to
satisfy (i.e. a requirement), comply with, match
establish (a rule or principle)
counterpart, analogue, equivalent
characteristic of, of a ____ nature
according to, corresponding to, in view of, in terms of, apart from, given ___, equivalent to, tantamount to
in principle, strictly speaking, by definition
consider, call, deem, regard, associate ____ with
therefore, consequently, thus, hence

(Easy, don't explode on me)


----------



## Entropic

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> You never said anything about Ni-suggestive, but I think she is Ni-PoLR because of her disliking for abstract things, thinking about the future, and stating "they hate me!" *in reference to Ni-bases*.


Where? At least she hasn't said she hates me lol, though making statements like that in itself strongly suggests Fi ego at least to me. Why would a Te base type cry out that people hate them, at least like that? I have yet to observe, it personally, even in creative Te types. 

Though Ni is not the only IM that would operate with abstraction. I could in a sense, equally see it as a form of Ti PoLR depending on why she avoids it.


----------



## liminalthought

ephemereality said:


> Where? At least she hasn't said she hates me lol, though making statements like that in itself strongly suggests Fi ego at least to me. Why would a Te base type cry out that people hate them, at least like that? I have yet to observe, it personally, even in creative Te types.
> 
> Though Ni is not the only IM that would operate with abstraction. I could in a sense, equally see it as a form of Ti PoLR depending on why she avoids it.


Isn't crying out that people hate them more of an Fe behavior (surrounding feelings)? Fi is more of a sentiment towards certain people.



ephemereality said:


> As for that Wikisocion article, I related a lot to the Ne and to a degree to Ni but some of the Ni options were just so focused on prediction and I honestly don't think much in terms of prediction at all. Would that suddenly make me an Ne type?


Well, prediction is not the only instance and form of Ni. But, you're right that the Ni vocab is lacking.


----------



## monemi

If my mother could see this, she would be shaking her head at my impatience. I folded awhile ago and you're still trying to type me. Your perseverance is making me look bad. I do persevere when things make sense. Like logistics or physical endurance or repairing an engine.


----------



## liminalthought

monemi said:


> If my mother could see this, she would be shaking her head at my impatience. I folded awhile ago and you're still trying to type me. Your perseverance is making me look bad. I do persevere when things make sense. Like logistics or physical endurance or repairing an engine.


Oh, don't worry. We were just thinking over our think overs and, in conclusion, we've ultimately decided to think it over. But the over came before the think, I think, which is another meaning entirely.


----------



## monemi

liminalthought said:


> Oh, don't worry. We were just thinking over our think overs and, in conclusion, we've ultimately decided to think it over. But the over came before the think, I think, which is another meaning entirely.


If anyone else is reading this, can I have a show of hands from all those who are confused by this post? 

:laughing:


----------



## liminalthought

monemi said:


> If anyone else is reading this, can I have a show of hands from all those who are confused by this post?
> 
> :laughing:


I recommend those people to think over the post. Not to say you should _over think_ it, as in over before think.


----------



## Entropic

monemi said:


> If my mother could see this, she would be shaking her head at my impatience. I folded awhile ago and you're still trying to type me. Your perseverance is making me look bad. I do persevere when things make sense. Like logistics or physical endurance or repairing an engine.


I would say it was more of a curious distraction. Why is it easier for you to deal with logistics, physical endurance or repairing an engine? Is it because you can directly see the outcome of your results?


----------



## monemi

ephemereality said:


> I would say it was more of a curious distraction. Why is it easier for you to deal with logistics, physical endurance or repairing an engine? Is it because you can directly see the outcome of your results?


Logistics are very specific. Get resource out to consumption. Whether it's goods, time or transportation. People will over complicate it, but it's pretty straight forward and whatever the obstacle, there's a solution in there and I'll know it when I see it. 

Physical endurance is just natural. Keep focusing on the goal and the rest will follow. 

Repairing an engine is just like topography. I can see it in my head and turn it over and around or on it's side and where things go. I can orient it around until I find what it is I'm looking for. Perspective might change, I know that everything is in a fixed location, I just need to keep track of it. 










Thinking and feeling change constantly. There's no fixed positions and no way to orient myself. Even in space, there might not be a north or up and down but there are fixed positions. My mind is a chaotic place that's open to interpretation and ever changing. That's frustrating to navigate.


----------



## itsme45

liminalthought said:


> You'll get there, in time. Think it over with the things you have available for you to recall.


You forgot to reply to me. See post: http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/153994-gamma-quadra-hangout-thread-9.html#post4111279




liminalthought said:


> By the way, have you seen this before?
> 
> Vocabulary - Wikisocion
> 
> 
> Maybe this can provide clearer clues. I'm going through her posts and comparing them with this side by side, hunting down any revealing phrases.
> 
> From what I've seen, the Vocab points to ILE.


I looked at that, gives me SEE though I didn't see all her posts on this site, just some. But so far Te > Ti, some Se, some Fi. What was so Ne in her posts?




liminalthought said:


> I don't see any of this:
> 
> (introverted ethics)


In some posts of her, I did see some of that.




> I see her yearning more for things that make sense in this fashion:
> 
> (introverted logic)


Really? In another thread she opened she started it with the words that she doesn't want any technical terms ("jargon") in the explanation she asked for (MBTI Ti function). The vocab site associates jargon with Ti.

Where did you see her yearning for Ti? And isn't that Ti superid then?  Like, ESE? Lol.




ephemereality said:


> What I see in her now that I've got a bit more perspective of her thinking, seems to match the forthright manner of SEE and to a degree also, ESI, quite well. Granted, I haven't engaged any LSE that I can think of, but she would still have the categorical thinking of egoic Te that I am not sure I am seeing.


Actually I'm curious about this. I know someone IRL and she seemed SEE first then I thought of LSE after some Te-overload. =P So in your opinion how is egoic Te different from SEE's Te-HA? Maybe just Se with Te seems to be more Te than what she actually has/uses? Monemi's posts sometimes strongly remind me of this woman.




> Most of her posts seem to be based more around an idea of what fits her or not but never do we see her making a logical argument for or against what does seem to fit or doesn't fit. Even though she may not have read up much on the system she should at least be familiar with its basic tenets considering that she has read the descriptions and know what the functions are, but she never made logical arguments about this. Instead it's more about that she doesn't feel that type doesn't fit and that type doesn't fit and so on that is more in line with Fi than Te in ego position in my opinion.


Hmm... The SEE/LSE girl sometimes rejected my arguments "just because" even when I appealed to Te. Didn't see monemi do that yet, though. And on the other hand, the girl I know IRL sometimes does make pretty logical arguments.




> As for that Wikisocion article, I related a lot to the Ne and to a degree to Ni but some of the Ni options were just so focused on prediction and I honestly don't think much in terms of prediction at all. Would that suddenly make me an Ne type?


Don't you think about unfolding of future events much? Or what do you mean by not thinking in terms of prediction?




ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> You never said anything about Ni-suggestive, but I think she is Ni-PoLR because of her disliking for abstract things, thinking about the future, and stating "they hate me!" in reference to Ni-bases.


Ni or Ti PoLR, or just weak Ni or weak Ti no? She didn't actually know who were Ni bases, did she? Or did she mean forum people with known types?





ephemereality said:


> Where? At least she hasn't said she hates me lol, though making statements like that in itself strongly suggests Fi ego at least to me. Why would a Te base type cry out that people hate them, at least like that? I have yet to observe, it personally, even in creative Te types.


I think that was sort of a joke, well a joke that has truth to it in a metaphorical way.





liminalthought said:


> Oh, don't worry. We were just thinking over our think overs and, in conclusion, we've ultimately decided to think it over. But the over came before the think, I think, which is another meaning entirely.


LOOL.




monemi said:


> Logistics are very specific. Get resource out to consumption. Whether it's goods, time or transportation. People will over complicate it, but it's pretty straight forward and whatever the obstacle, there's a solution in there and I'll know it when I see it.
> 
> Physical endurance is just natural. Keep focusing on the goal and the rest will follow.
> 
> Repairing an engine is just like topography. I can see it in my head and turn it over and around or on it's side and where things go. I can orient it around until I find what it is I'm looking for. Perspective might change, I know that everything is in a fixed location, I just need to keep track of it.
> 
> Thinking and feeling change constantly. There's no fixed positions and no way to orient myself. Even in space, there might not be a north or up and down but there are fixed positions. My mind is a chaotic place that's open to interpretation and ever changing. That's frustrating to navigate.


Now that was interesting  Liked reading your thoughts here (second part). 

Maybe the last sentence is Ni DS? The topography part HP thinking by any chance? I dunno, I never bothered with trying to see Gulenko thinking styles in others, just thought of it now. -.-


----------



## Entropic

@itsme45, The ones I've met don't Te overload and when they do, it's not in the manner of base Te. How do I explain, stupid Ni impressions. Essentially, there seems to be an insecurity and over-reliance on Te where citing sources are used to support one's say, ethical position or impression of reality. 

With base Te, it's so godamn dry I have issues with it at times. I think on a site such as PerC, it's easier to spot these differences in these subfora because most of the discussion is dedicated to understanding theory. I am not as good at typing people IRL, far from. 

Anyway, I disagree about Si-Ne axis now either way, because the way I read those posts of hers hardly scream Si-Ne in any fashion, sense or form. They are very direct and to the point and describe things exactly as they are rather than looking for what things could be that I associate with Ne, nor do they seem to describe that which is known and experienced in the past. I would then if so, be far more inclined to suggest SLE though I clearly don't see her as an Ti-Fe valuing type. 

And yes, I think in gammas specifically, Te and can difficult to separate from Se and vice versa because Te as an extroverted function is also impersonal in that it deals with impersonal matter, in this case, definitions of objects, systems and so on and when it blends with Se, it gets very factual. I mean, I confused my Te and Se, for a long time thinking Te was my DS.

Also, I think when it comes to SEEs with better Te, they are far more likely to first be mistaken for logical types than they are ethical types rather than vice versa. Case in point is my SEE friend who I mistook for an SLI for a long time because I quickly figured out she was a sensor based on how she seemed to understand the world, and I knew she was an Fi-Te type, and she's logical and sees herself as logical, and to a degree she does fit many of the Reinin traits for SLI. It is only know that I know her better that I can really see the Fi creative. In a certain way, SeFi can seem a little Si-ish with how Se provides sensory impressions and Fi adds personal value to it. 

Also, I think perhaps a good example of someone with Te HA and who is a gamma is @Swordsman of Mana, who I would hardly think of as illogical or irrational. The only reason I think people typed him as an EIE at all was because he fit the stereotype somewhat, being a 7. Another thing I notice with Te HA is that there's a slight impatience when it comes to dealing with external logical systems, they kind of want information now, and one way of doing that is to seek out simple external sources such as type descriptions rather than trying to engage with them at depth. I find that in all xEEs I've engaged, this seems to partially hold true and I think that is a result overall caused by their extroversion being focused on the extroverted world and it's easier to spot the Te data in that world because it's well, extroverted. I often find myself in a position with these people where I have to describe and provide them with the depth they actually seek in understanding but are unable to provide themselves because of Pi DS. Creating personal internal systems the way Pi operates utilizing Te data is too difficult. Easier to rely on their ego base then, even if the understanding ultimately becomes superficial.

Also, sometimes Te HA can reject arguments because it just doesn't fit their conception of the world. Now, the real question is why they reject the argument and how they do it. A logical type will reject the argument based on logic - this is an incorrect assertion because of XYZ reasons. An ethical type, especially when pressed to deal with logical matter in a stressing situation, is far more likely to fall back on ethical arguments and I've seen this happen a lot with the IEE I know. It's wrong because it's missing the feeling aspect of the situation. Logic is too impersonal as an approach. 

You can easily check this with people too if you know how to press the right buttons. With ethical types for example, by telling them to phrase themselves logically. 

Anyway, posts like these is why I see Se base:



> Logistics are very specific. Get resource out to consumption. Whether it's goods, time or transportation. People will over complicate it, but it's pretty straight forward and whatever the obstacle, there's a solution in there and I'll know it when I see it.
> 
> Physical endurance is just natural. Keep focusing on the goal and the rest will follow.
> 
> Repairing an engine is just like topography. I can see it in my head and turn it over and around or on it's side and where things go. I can orient it around until I find what it is I'm looking for. Perspective might change, I know that everything is in a fixed location, I just need to keep track of it.
> 
> Thinking and feeling change constantly. There's no fixed positions and no way to orient myself. Even in space, there might not be a north or up and down but there are fixed positions. My mind is a chaotic place that's open to interpretation and ever changing. That's frustrating to navigate.


This is not the response of an Ne-Si valuing type in my opinion, but comes from what is clearly Se to me. She's describing things exactly as they are according to how she's experiencing it. Seems quite SeTe in general. An Si type with Si creative would be more inclined to engage this question based on what they've experienced. I see this clearly in my ESE grandmother if you probe her about personal experiences. She will start talking about how it was like in her childhood and so on. 

Regarding the topography comment, the thinking in general seems very Ni, changing the meaning of the object into something else. And I agree, it does seem HP-like in logic though I have to admit I understand HP poorly. It just seems too foreign to me. SEE is CD, by the way.


----------



## liminalthought

itsme45 said:


> Extra facts/data wouldn't have to be needed because people strong in Ni process them anyway over time to see the trends and whatnot.


How is it processed anyways? No one can guess information without first knowing the idea of it exists first.


----------



## itsme45

liminalthought said:


> How is it processed anyways? No one can guess information without first knowing the idea of it exists first.


sorry the second half of the sentence didn't make sense to me, what kind of idea?


----------



## liminalthought

Well, Ni users do need data (knowing the idea of something exists). If we didn't have any data, we would only be extrapolating all forecasts, as in going beyond the values already known enough to create great inaccuracy. Without outside data, we would make very bad predictions and insights. How can you infer something about something, if that something does not exist or is not defined? This is where outside information comes in (Te for ILI or Fe for IEI).

 : benefit, efficiency, action, knowledge, method, mechanism, act, work, motion, reason, technology, fact, expediency, economy, asks "why" to get information, facts, analysis collected data to make logical conclusions, law, legal right, generally accepted knowledge and rules/laws is more the realm of Te


In pasting this standard information from wikisocion, I am observing and making use of outside data with Te. By observing and making use of this data [collected data to make logical conclusions, law, legal right, generally accepted knowledge and rules/laws is more the realm of Te], I am proving that the insight within [How can you infer something about something, if that something does not exist or is not defined?] is true, being self evident in the action to make and method this whole statement by the stated means [In pasting this standard information from wikisocion, I am observing and making use of outside data with Te] which are inherent and rule in whole of this very statement to define Te by Te.


----------



## Entropic

itsme45 said:


> Ahh okay, hmm, Ti for me is a bit more than just categorization of data.


Explain?


> She usually remembers the facts correctly, just sometimes makes that mistake


I see. It's difficult to judge since I don't know her.


> Well so what is it like?


I saw a great scene of this yesterday in the movie Paprika. Let's see if I can find it somewhere. Nope, but essentially she lost her normally very controlled and composed self, berated him for his lack of intelligence, threw the stuff he was mech'ing with on the floor and slapped him even I think. I don't remember. Maybe I'll record it later and upload it.


> She didn't try to use logic in that entire conversation. Not sure I used much of it either, though.


Ah, could be irrational type?


> Well she was being pretty normative. Though that might be more MBTI Fe than socionics Fe and I was curious about socionics here.


Hm, I don't see them as that different so explain what you mean here? 




> Information elements - Wikisocion
> 
> "States of mind"
> 
> What do you think?


I relate to the Se one the most as I notice the strongest shift in my consciousness when I activate Se.


> Yes, I read that a lot about MBTI Ne/Si and even socionics ILE does something like that, when seeing an object, ILE will think of other objects from the past. And that somehow helps the ILE with analysing... This is just how Ne associating works. Not me, for sure.


I think so, but I don't understand it.


> Another thing about Ne is this, their concepts of things are made up of these associations, like, every concept of an object is built up of several. I'm sure Si assists with that somehow too...


Definitely. Si has to inform Ne about where to go.


> I find these two things are actually characteristic of Ne-doms (and I suppose aux or creative Ne types too). I find it useful directly asking about these when trying to see if someone uses Ne strongly or not.  If they're strong in Ne they will have no problem understanding and answering anyway. (I don't mean intellectually, just simply that they actually have Ne so they "get" what the question is about)


Yes, the person who wrote it self-typed as INFP and based on that excerpt, I saw no point disputing that. Very foreign to my own thinking. And yes, exactly. They don't need to produce but if they know and understand, they are likely sharing that cognition. Like I was explaining Se to another Ne type and told them what Se is and that person responded that thinking this way was very foreign and even mentally painful. I think it was the same person who wrote that Ne description. 



> Well but just imagine you're going to visit family for christmas or something. Sorry if that was an unrealistic example. The idea is just picking something like that, some event that will happen sometime in future (because there's always christmas and christmas dinner with family for example) and imagine how it will be going.
> 
> Extra facts/data wouldn't have to be needed because people strong in Ni process them anyway over time to see the trends and whatnot.


Ok, I don't tend to think about such events because they are so dull and I think I take them for granted. I assume that I will arrive a couple of days before because I always do, and I will sleep on the extra bed like I always do, and then we celebrate Christmas like we always do, maybe my stepmom's sister will come and visit because sometimes she does that, and my brother will be there with his girlfriend and dad and I will do stuff in the kitchen because we both share an interest in cooking.

The major difference my family would have to deal with if I were to visit them would be that I am going by a different name IRL now and I obviously look a little different. I assume I would get rather annoyed and pissed off by all the people saying wrong all the time though no one has taken it negatively but I think my brother has issues accepting and understanding. Despite being so much pro-feminism he's incredibly narrow-minded, or rather, he's not that intelligent, so he has difficulties thinking about the entirety of the issue when it's complex. Can't abstractize enough, so he shuts things off or just cuts it off and pretends as if it's not there. I assume that's more a case of ignorance and just stupidity from his end. Some people just cannot grasp the true complexity of issues. Not because I am saying I can always do it either, but I can at least do it significantly better than him.

Though, I hope, if things go according to plan, I might not even go home for Christmas because I need to be home and rest from my surgery, but that's really extremely optimist thinking from my end. I know better once I meet my doctor in about two weeks.


----------



## itsme45

ephemereality said:


> Explain?


Okay so categories and definitions can be part of Ti sure. It's also about logical consistency, see more on that below when I talk about a "filter". Then it's also about the structure of a system of how something works; that has logical connections, causal connections, rules, relations between parts of the system, it all can be hierarchical too. Sometimes I can visualize this all in "shapes", hard to describe but it's something visual. it's usually not terribly visual though, somewhere between abstract and visual  If I get it fully visualized it often also makes things really concise and I really like that.

Obviously it's all in a subjective sense too so what I see is not really there. But I feel like it's there because it actually works for me haha.

It's not always a full system, if a full system is called on like this then it's consciously "seen" internally in the above ways. But Ti can be just a sort of "filter" too, like someone used the expression perceptual filter, I think that's a good name for it, and I think that's the default part that's more often on (not always or I don't notice if always). It can use systems as sort of frameworks for the filter or it can be just generic logical rules and way of thinking, caring for consistency and whatnot. 

E.g. I learnt English in a pretty explicitly logical way (like the above system stuff), and then I just applied that as a filter when I was reading and using English. Actually in my native language too, sometimes people actually notice that "filter". Just a note, the English example was simply about the way you construct sentences (grammar basically), however what other people notice in my native language is not necessarily my grammar usage. It's more about my cognitive processing of the actual content of what they said.

There's also some of it in my behaviour but I'll have to think more about how that works, how it's displayed and that's not so relevant now anyway. (If you want to hear about it, I can write up something though)

Oh uh, reading all this back it sounds a bit suspicious... too much Ti, I'm not totally excluding base/dom Ti  But I dunno. I think it's on-off for me but what if I just don't notice it being always on. *shrug*


Is all this foreign to you then?? 


Oh and whatever Jung says about Ti, that's also pretty good. In chapter X 




> I saw a great scene of this yesterday in the movie Paprika. Let's see if I can find it somewhere. Nope, but essentially she lost her normally very controlled and composed self, berated him for his lack of intelligence, threw the stuff he was mech'ing with on the floor and slapped him even I think. I don't remember. Maybe I'll record it later and upload it.


Okay 




> Ah, could be irrational type?


Yes could be...




> Hm, I don't see them as that different so explain what you mean here?


This says it better than me: http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...ing-mbti-functions-socionics-im-elements.html






> I relate to the Se one the most as I notice the strongest shift in my consciousness when I activate Se.


Interesting  ...how about Fi, Ni?

I relate to all the S/T ones but only really like the Se and Ti ones.




> Yes, the person who wrote it self-typed as INFP and based on that excerpt


Link?




> And yes, exactly. They don't need to produce but if they know and understand, they are likely sharing that cognition. Like I was explaining Se to another Ne type and told them what Se is and that person responded that thinking this way was very foreign and even mentally painful. I think it was the same person who wrote that Ne description.


That's the really weird thing about all this typology stuff, how some things can be mentally painful 

Ne is just like that for me, foreign / painful and I'm really not being close minded here but it's still really hard to believe or imagine that some people don't orient by Se by default.  Or Ni, I can still understand it if someone's going by Ni. For a while I doubted there was even anything to this typology business because I couldn't begin to understand how someone would be using something instead of Se (and Ni). I'm past that, I sort of get the Ne stuff now.




> Ok, I don't tend to think about such events because they are so dull and I think I take them for granted.


Yeah maybe not the best example for a gamma type, sorry 

Anyway that was a lot of feelings there but that's understandable due to the context.


----------



## Entropic

itsme45 said:


> Okay so categories and definitions can be part of Ti sure. It's also about logical consistency, see more on that below when I talk about a "filter". Then it's also about the structure of a system of how something works; that has logical connections, causal connections, rules, relations between parts of the system, it all can be hierarchical too. Sometimes I can visualize this all in "shapes", hard to describe but it's something visual. it's usually not terribly visual though, somewhere between abstract and visual  If I get it fully visualized it often also makes things really concise and I really like that.
> 
> Obviously it's all in a subjective sense too so what I see is not really there. But I feel like it's there because it actually works for me haha.
> 
> It's not always a full system, if a full system is called on like this then it's consciously "seen" internally in the above ways. But Ti can be just a sort of "filter" too, like someone used the expression perceptual filter, I think that's a good name for it, and I think that's the default part that's more often on (not always or I don't notice if always). It can use systems as sort of frameworks for the filter or it can be just generic logical rules and way of thinking, caring for consistency and whatnot.
> 
> E.g. I learnt English in a pretty explicitly logical way (like the above system stuff), and then I just applied that as a filter when I was reading and using English. Actually in my native language too, sometimes people actually notice that "filter". Just a note, the English example was simply about the way you construct sentences (grammar basically), however what other people notice in my native language is not necessarily my grammar usage. It's more about my cognitive processing of the actual content of what they said.
> 
> There's also some of it in my behaviour but I'll have to think more about how that works, how it's displayed and that's not so relevant now anyway. (If you want to hear about it, I can write up something though)
> 
> Oh uh, reading all this back it sounds a bit suspicious... too much Ti, I'm not totally excluding base/dom Ti  But I dunno. I think it's on-off for me but what if I just don't notice it being always on. *shrug*
> 
> 
> Is all this foreign to you then??
> 
> 
> Oh and whatever Jung says about Ti, that's also pretty good. In chapter X


What do you mean by "filter"? I am not sure I fully grasp what you are getting at. Do you mean say, applying grammatical rules to structure language? So when you write/speak, do you always think in terms of grammar? I think I just had my first WTF moment of the day. This is very foreign to how I think, definitely. I have honestly been doubting whether I am a Te subtype because I think in terms of my consciousness, I probably don't Te as much as I may seem externally, at least in debate. Like you, I suppose I experience as a slightly on-off with no real control when it happens. I don't like too much rigid categorization, and follow grammar when thinking and constructing sentences isn't what I do at all. I've spoken to madhatter about it, some kind of base Ti type, and she's the same way. She's more concerned about the rules that govern language than she is about the meaning of language, I guess one should put it. 

I'm concerned about the meaning, what people intend when they say or write something. Not just meaning of words themselves, but also meanings in entire sentences or ideas they are describing. That's why I tend to read the abstracts and summaries first when I read scientific papers, because they tend to summarize that meaning or intent that I seek. What was the purpose of the study? What is the result of the study? Details are, as a whole, superfluous. I've gone through most of my school years with this attitude. I barely studied, didn't need to, for most of the part, especially when we had tests that were of more theoretical nature and we had to describe concepts, ideas or theories. I often grasped the basic idea while in class, so picking up the book to read up was unnecessary and I rarely felt that it deepened my understanding. In retrospect I am not even sure I can force my understanding to operate in this way, by just reading and absorbing more information, because there's a certain point where the sorting-out process of what is what just takes a lot of time and it occurs quite unconsciously. 

Of course I can be concerned about logical validity and logical consistency, especially in debate, but I feel that logic always takes a step back because what matters the most always is that I am capable of conveying my ideas properly, my conceptualization of the world. There's also a point where I feel that logic _cannot_ explain everything, and everything _should not be_ logical. Too much logic and the magic is gone. 

I actually think I had a conflict with Flatlander about this when we were watching The Matrix together and it reached the part with the infamous pill scene. I have seen the film numerous times already (duh), so I had begun formulating an idea whether the colors could reflect the political climate in the US at the time. And my idea was quite advanced where I saw the The Matrix and the machine world essentially representing corporate greed and so on, controlling the masses through deception and how it mimics the current world of affairs with TV, consumerism and such being an attempt to make people forget and ignore actual reality. I also thought it made perfect sense that The Matrix could, in its own way, be a societal critique just like Fight Club, being released in the same area and almost the same year. I find that in general, especially around this time, a lot of films were produced with this message, more or less explicitly. But Flatlander said that the colors were just there to draw attention, red being a strong color and blue a weak one, whereas I was also thinking red was obviously representing the left and the blue pill the right. And as much as I can see his point, it just felt at that point, the magic was gone. Logic ruined it. 

So I think outside thinking of theory, I probably don't let Te logic influence my psyche much at all, actually. It's difficult enough to come up with examples of Te. It feels like I need to change my cognitive modus operandi to something that feels slightly foreign and not wholly natural. 



> This says it better than me: http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...ing-mbti-functions-socionics-im-elements.html


Hm, I am not sure I agree with this point of view, because I see both systems trying to explain the same cognitive behavior at its core. It's all Jung, so to speak. This is why I don't put and place any emphasis on descriptions. Let me quote myself on the matter:



> What one is describing is ultimately an abstract concept -- the ability to see how both systems attempt to describe the same abstract idea as originally laid out by Jung, who I think, similarly, was also just describing a concept that he observed but is not the sole source or the totality of understanding, either. So for people, depending on intelligence levels, this may or may not be more or less difficult to grasp.
> 
> Descriptions don't matter. They can guide and help to provide an idea of what the theory is about, but the theory is never the description itself, though an extrovert (especially Te type) might somewhat disagree on that point of view, being more concerned about the external world, since descriptions are a part of it.





> Interesting  ...how about Fi, Ni?


Hm, maybe, if I say relate to the above I wrote about The Matrix. I suppose some might think of it as a dreamy, mysterious, wistful, melancholic, or reflective state of inner discovery and searching; reflecting upon the future or the past. I don't necessarily see it that way or experience it that way. It's such a natural state of mind in a sense. 

Hm, Fi I understand what it's trying to say, though I am not sure there either when it comes to "state of mind". Though I guess, I do seek some kind of emotional endearment or closeness, and emotional sensitivity that's based on love, hatred, or disgust for others. 

Hm, Te I do understand what it means, but it's very draining. 


> Link?


http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/161187-love-hate-tertiary.html#post4126117



> That's the really weird thing about all this typology stuff, how some things can be mentally painful
> 
> Ne is just like that for me, foreign / painful and I'm really not being close minded here but it's still really hard to believe or imagine that some people don't orient by Se by default.  Or Ni, I can still understand it if someone's going by Ni. For a while I doubted there was even anything to this typology business because I couldn't begin to understand how someone would be using something instead of Se (and Ni). I'm past that, I sort of get the Ne stuff now.


That's the good part with cognitive psychology too, because it describes _why_ we consider it painful as well. 




> Yeah maybe not the best example for a gamma type, sorry
> 
> Anyway that was a lot of feelings there but that's understandable due to the context.


What kind of feeling? 

And uh, I am not sure there is a good example for a gamma. I need to think of something.


----------



## itsme45

ephemereality said:


> What do you mean by "filter"?


Well I saw the expression "perceptional filter" somewhere else on the forum and I really liked it. Maybe just because Ti is a judging function but it definitely works like that. Its "filter" is applied, processing things according to whatever "guidelines". For meaning of "guidelines" see everything I wrote about Ti above. Se "filter" would be different, no such logical guidelines there. I would however not say that I discard much data, I don't necessarily strongly prefer my ideas over data. Sometimes I like my ideas though. And regardless of me preferring my specific ideas on something or not, it may take time for *all* data to come through processed. So whatever's not processed, that just stays "as is" 




> I am not sure I fully grasp what you are getting at. Do you mean say, applying grammatical rules to structure language? So when you write/speak, do you always think in terms of grammar?


Well it was just an example with English as it's not my native language and I thought it would be a good example showing how I learnt it. So the grammar thing is a bit more explicit/more conscious there, I don't really call up explicit grammar rules one by one though, I just "see" the sentence structures. Over time all this got more "supraconscious" though. Not so conscious, just something working in the background. So no longer "seeing", just "feeling" instead. Sorry maybe that's not making much sense to anyone else now. :/ Actually something similar happened to my native language in a way, when I got "transformed" at age 18-20 (which I mentioned earlier). That since then also got more "supraconscious".




> I think I just had my first WTF moment of the day. This is very foreign to how I think, definitely.


Ahh okay. Heh about the WTF... Note though that it's not the only aspect of Ti, just one of the aspects. Maybe not every Ti type bothers with language in this way. I'd be curious to hear about that from others though.

So how about you, do you just simply think of things, ideas and just have them going on without additional analysis? Do you never break anything down into parts (this I think Ti does because it's necessary for building structure)?




> I have honestly been doubting whether I am a Te subtype because I think in terms of my consciousness, I probably don't Te as much as I may seem externally, at least in debate. Like you, I suppose I experience as a slightly on-off with no real control when it happens. I don't like too much rigid categorization, and follow grammar when thinking and constructing sentences isn't what I do at all. I've spoken to madhatter about it, some kind of base Ti type, and she's the same way. She's more concerned about the rules that govern language than she is about the meaning of language, I guess one should put it.


Ah so madhatter is kind of like me? I'm actually just as concerned about meaning of whatever text though*. And then part of the meaning is also Ti, in terms of how well something's defined. Though I have a love-hate relationship with delineated categories sometimes. I really have a strong opinion on how in some things the existing categories just plain suck. I don't want to go off on that tangent here, but my criticism of those categories is to do with how very reductionist my thinking can get. (LSI? )

*: If you meant something like, "what's the meaning of language?" I would just analyse what language "is", in terms of definitions, in terms of where language comes from, etc. If you're not like that then let me ask, what do you mean by meaning of language?




> I'm concerned about the meaning, what people intend when they say or write something. Not just meaning of words themselves, but also meanings in entire sentences or ideas they are describing. That's why I tend to read the abstracts and summaries first when I read scientific papers, because they tend to summarize that meaning or intent that I seek.


Yeah, I think it would be silly not to look for the meaning of the study though who knows if I mean the same thing by "meaning". Abstracts I read because it's faster and usually enough for the studies where they're required  And sure I might not have the patience to read the whole study. (Or even have access without paying for the article...) Depends. I do like details more than you, though. I somehow do feel it deepens the understanding for me.




> In retrospect I am not even sure I can force my understanding to operate in this way, by just reading and absorbing more information, because there's a certain point where the sorting-out process of what is what just takes a lot of time and it occurs quite unconsciously.


Then we work quite the opposite way, I always went like this, I read and absorb the information and sort it out and then recall that for the exam. That is, I most readily remember the structure along with meaning and then the details categorized into a made-up system - sort of mnemonics, but not really like the mnemonics techniques you can read about, I simply just do hierarchical categorizing and the details will stick that way without any additional tricks. I suppose this is Ti/Se too. Though the memorizing of the details in general is still a pain in the ass - I doubt anyone is happy doing that - but since the exams always ask about them, I have to do it. I really am best at remembering structure and meaning though, details stick relatively well, just not without the help of structuring and/or context. About context, I mean I can recall surprisingly lots of details in context without needing a categorization or other structure but that is probably not Ti but something else.




> Of course I can be concerned about logical validity and logical consistency, especially in debate, but I feel that logic always takes a step back because what matters the most always is that I am capable of conveying my ideas properly, my conceptualization of the world. There's also a point where I feel that logic _cannot_ explain everything, and everything _should not be_ logical. Too much logic and the magic is gone.


I agree I don't expect everything to be logical, just when I'm in "judging mode"  At least this is how I see this in a conscious way.




> I actually think I had a conflict with Flatlander about this when we were watching The Matrix together and it reached the part with the infamous pill scene. I have seen the film numerous times already (duh), so I had begun formulating an idea whether the colors could reflect the political climate in the US at the time. And my idea was quite advanced where I saw the The Matrix and the machine world essentially representing corporate greed and so on, controlling the masses through deception and how it mimics the current world of affairs with TV, consumerism and such being an attempt to make people forget and ignore actual reality. I also thought it made perfect sense that The Matrix could, in its own way, be a societal critique just like Fight Club, being released in the same area and almost the same year. I find that in general, especially around this time, a lot of films were produced with this message, more or less explicitly. But Flatlander said that the colors were just there to draw attention, red being a strong color and blue a weak one, whereas I was also thinking red was obviously representing the left and the blue pill the right. And as much as I can see his point, it just felt at that point, the magic was gone. Logic ruined it.


Ah I see. And I didn't think about the pill colours at all 




> So I think outside thinking of theory, I probably don't let Te logic influence my psyche much at all, actually. It's difficult enough to come up with examples of Te. It feels like I need to change my cognitive modus operandi to something that feels slightly foreign and not wholly natural.


That's weird, is that an ILI thing at all?




> Hm, I am not sure I agree with this point of view, because I see both systems trying to explain the same cognitive behavior at its core. It's all Jung, so to speak. This is why I don't put and place any emphasis on descriptions. Let me quote myself on the matter


I agree with your view about how to treat descriptions in general that but I still think that the two theories are describing something different. Simply, the end conclusions also end up as different. Do you disagree on that? Do you just discard those discrepancies and stick with Jung in some way?




> Hm, maybe, if I say relate to the above I wrote about The Matrix. I suppose some might think of it as a dreamy, mysterious, wistful, melancholic, or reflective state of inner discovery and searching; reflecting upon the future or the past. I don't necessarily see it that way or experience it that way. It's such a natural state of mind in a sense.


 Yeah I don't know how Ni base types are with that, any other ILI or IEI around?




> Hm, Te I do understand what it means, but it's very draining.


Te as ego function shouldn't be too draining. Ti to me isn't draining though I think it can be mentally taxing to keep it up all day. I can do that however if I want to.




> What kind of feeling?


Well, "pissed off", "annoyed"... the rest wasn't about feelings of course




> And uh, I am not sure there is a good example for a gamma. I need to think of something.


okay


----------



## liminalthought

liminalthought said:


> Ah, Maximilien Robespierre
> (a textbook LII: Socionics - the16types.info - INTj description by Filatova)
> 
> "However, this portrayal deserves some questioning and qualification. For no other participant in the French Revolution deserved the title of “the Incorruptible” more than Maximilien Robespierre. Robespierre never wrote, nor uttered a word that he did not believe in with the utmost conviction. The idea of accepting a bribe, or raising his social and political standing for his own sake, proved loathsome for Robespierre. He was sincere to a fault, and as a result, he stubbornly refused to compromise his principles,
> regardless of the consequences. This rigid self-discipline was his greatest strength as a politician and citizen. However, it was also his greatest weakness. Unfortunately, “incorruptible” can only be defined as one who is incapable of becoming corrupted, not one who is incapable of having faults. Although his faults were few, the ones he did have were responsible for both his own
> demise and the deaths of thousands. These faults were equally and directly linked to the paradoxes of his thought."
> http://digitalcommons.providence.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=student_scholarship
> 
> You know what [they did] to him for being so stubborn?
> 
> View attachment 82966
> 
> 
> I guess he had it coming or something. History homework doesn't ever get boring at all.


I guess my prophecy wasn't too far off.


----------



## Entropic

Seems I forgot to answer this:



itsme45 said:


> Well I saw the expression "perceptional filter" somewhere else on the forum and I really liked it. Maybe just because Ti is a judging function but it definitely works like that. Its "filter" is applied, processing things according to whatever "guidelines". For meaning of "guidelines" see everything I wrote about Ti above. Se "filter" would be different, no such logical guidelines there. I would however not say that I discard much data, I don't necessarily strongly prefer my ideas over data. Sometimes I like my ideas though. And regardless of me preferring my specific ideas on something or not, it may take time for *all* data to come through processed. So whatever's not processed, that just stays "as is"


I honestly have difficulties grasping this. I think it's because of cognitive divides here more than anything else. Is Ti akin to Fi "guidelines"? Is that what you mean? Like some kind of internal guide that determines the nature of things? 



> Well it was just an example with English as it's not my native language and I thought it would be a good example showing how I learnt it. So the grammar thing is a bit more explicit/more conscious there, I don't really call up explicit grammar rules one by one though, I just "see" the sentence structures. Over time all this got more "supraconscious" though. Not so conscious, just something working in the background. So no longer "seeing", just "feeling" instead. Sorry maybe that's not making much sense to anyone else now. :/ Actually something similar happened to my native language in a way, when I got "transformed" at age 18-20 (which I mentioned earlier). That since then also got more "supraconscious".


So the whole thing about grammar, it becomes so innate you don't notice it anymore? Is that what you mean?



> Ahh okay. Heh about the WTF... Note though that it's not the only aspect of Ti, just one of the aspects. Maybe not every Ti type bothers with language in this way. I'd be curious to hear about that from others though.


I just know that madhatter described something similar. More interested in the rules that govern language than how language infers the symbolic meaning in human expressions. 



> So how about you, do you just simply think of things, ideas and just have them going on without additional analysis? Do you never break anything down into parts (this I think Ti does because it's necessary for building structure)?


I don't think I break things down into parts the way you describe it, anyway. Ideas can be broken down into parts as in, I take that I see to be the core of one idea and then that core is infused with another core, becoming the core of the core. So it's actually less about breaking things apart as in, you got several pieces that you play around with, as much it is a process of removing what is seen as unnecessary or superfluous information and focusing on what seems to be really relevant. It's like you are peeling a fruit, so you keep peeling until there is only the core left. 

Analysis occurs when I try to match this understanding with what I already know and what is out there. When I wrote my academic theses, I spent very little researching and more about simply validating my ideas because my ideas already kind of existed "out there". I just needed to find the right source that reinforces my point of view, though my point of view exists independently of the source. The source can however be an inspiration like how Jungian dream analysis inspired my own dream analysis. In the end though, it becomes integrated within myself and my mind and a part of me, unrelated from the rest of the world. There is no logic to this understanding either, it's not of logical nature. It's much fairer to say that they're ideas or impressions of things. Very difficult to put into words. 



> Ah so madhatter is kind of like me? I'm actually just as concerned about meaning of whatever text though*. And then part of the meaning is also Ti, in terms of how well something's defined. Though I have a love-hate relationship with delineated categories sometimes. I really have a strong opinion on how in some things the existing categories just plain suck. I don't want to go off on that tangent here, but my criticism of those categories is to do with how very reductionist my thinking can get. (LSI? )


Heh, I don't speak of meaning in terms of how well-defined something is. There are no definitions here. Rather, meaning is... a sense of meaning. That it feels personally meaningful, there's some kind of symbolic depth in the word(s). 

And I don't see you being LSI. You don't seem to be as rigid as Ti base types seem to be. 



> *: If you meant something like, "what's the meaning of language?" I would just analyse what language "is", in terms of definitions, in terms of where language comes from, etc. If you're not like that then let me ask, what do you mean by meaning of language?


The intent, purpose, idea language represents. Similar to semiotics I suppose. 



> Yeah, I think it would be silly not to look for the meaning of the study though who knows if I mean the same thing by "meaning". Abstracts I read because it's faster and usually enough for the studies where they're required  And sure I might not have the patience to read the whole study. (Or even have access without paying for the article...) Depends. I do like details more than you, though. I somehow do feel it deepens the understanding for me.


To me details become superfluous. I want to cut away in order to get to the essentials. 



> Then we work quite the opposite way, I always went like this, I read and absorb the information and sort it out and then recall that for the exam. That is, I most readily remember the structure along with meaning and then the details categorized into a made-up system - sort of mnemonics, but not really like the mnemonics techniques you can read about, I simply just do hierarchical categorizing and the details will stick that way without any additional tricks. I suppose this is Ti/Se too. Though the memorizing of the details in general is still a pain in the ass - I doubt anyone is happy doing that - but since the exams always ask about them, I have to do it. I really am best at remembering structure and meaning though, details stick relatively well, just not without the help of structuring and/or context. About context, I mean I can recall surprisingly lots of details in context without needing a categorization or other structure but that is probably not Ti but something else.


I am best at remembering the ideas, what things represent. Tell me to write a literature analysis of Kafka and I would have no problem doing that. I might invoke grammar or similar though I am not overly found of that kind of discourse analysis, personally. I feel it gets stuck at redundant details and misses the point. The use of grammar can infer the ideas the text try to convey e.g. several superlatives could imply something specific, but I wouldn't be so concerned about the superlatives themselves much as I'd be concerned about how the superlatives are tools to convey an idea. 



> I agree I don't expect everything to be logical, just when I'm in "judging mode"  At least this is how I see this in a conscious way.


Makse sense.


> Ah I see. And I didn't think about the pill colours at all


But that's the kind of impressions I get. I experience something and I kind of go, what does this mean/represent?


> That's weird, is that an ILI thing at all?


I think it is a thing that is probably quite normal when you force yourself to consciously indulge more in an IM perspective that isn't your base.


> I agree with your view about how to treat descriptions in general that but I still think that the two theories are describing something different. Simply, the end conclusions also end up as different. Do you disagree on that? Do you just discard those discrepancies and stick with Jung in some way?


The observations are different in that the conclusions of the observations may be, or least have a different focus, but the phenomena they try to describe is the same. It all goes back to Jung and what he observed, who too, only observed one facet of it. They are thus all manifestations of the same core idea regarding human cognition. So I don't see them as different at all. They just look different but the core content isn't.


> Yeah I don't know how Ni base types are with that, any other ILI or IEI around?


I think I indulge more as well, though I still don't quite see it like that. It's more like a chaotic space. 



> Te as ego function shouldn't be too draining. Ti to me isn't draining though I think it can be mentally taxing to keep it up all day. I can do that however if I want to.


If I have to do it too much as a conscious thing. It feels like I become very rigid and I lose "flow" mentally. That's what I mean.


----------



## bionic

All this TL;DR. Welp, this thread went to shit.


----------



## liminalthought

bionic said:


> All this TL;DR. Welp, this thread went to shit.


The entire forum.


----------



## cyamitide

> M_any of them use questionnaires and figure out TIMs by checking the replies (the written text of the respondent) for presence of absence of certain dichotomies, plus-minus signs, dimensionality of functions, and so on. The only difference is that their questionnaires is usually longer than the ones I've seen on this site and contain more relevant questions._
> 
> _It has become popular to pull out the "oh you can't type me because you never met me irl" because that shields the person from anyone who dares to disagree with their self-typing -- and it's total BS._





JWC3 said:


> What sort of questions are used on the questionnaires you mention?


It seems like they used questions to target specific information elements, like they have sections for Si, Ti, Fe, and then ask very poignant questions directed into that specific aspect that requires a complex answer. I don't remember the specifics and with using an automatic translator I'm sure something got lost in translation. These weren't general questions, like that ones I saw on the questionnaires posted here ("what is beauty", etc.) but seems more situational and specific. The people who judged them seemed to be all of the same school of socionics and supposedly they achieved very high accuracy with figuring out types from these written responses, but because it was a free service they said that they got inundated with typing requests so there was huge delay in result delivery.

They seemed to have put a lot of time into analyzing the replies. I saw one response sheet that they scanned and published as an example of their work and it was riddled with notes and commentary. That level of proficiency is really not attainable on this forum because the interest in socionics here is more on casual and cursory level, but when someone goes on to say "you can't tell my type because you've never met and don't know me" I highly doubt it. Socionics typing isn't rocket science and it doesn't take years and years of getting to know someone to typing them accurately.


----------



## Entropic

cyamitide said:


> but when someone goes on to say "you can't tell my type because you've never met and don't know me" I highly doubt it. Socionics typing isn't rocket science and it doesn't take years and years of getting to know someone to typing them accurately.


I agree, and while people can differ IRL and online, it's not so much about behavior specifically to begin with one should look for, because behavior can be misleading. And people often self-report themselves inaccurately as well, which is why self-reporting tests are inaccurate to begin with.


----------



## Immemorial

Anyone have any decent resources on subtypes? I don't recall ever finding anything substantial on them.


----------



## itsme45

liminalthought said:


> I guess my prophecy wasn't too far off.


Huh?




ephemereality said:


> I honestly have difficulties grasping this. I think it's because of cognitive divides here more than anything else. Is Ti akin to Fi "guidelines"? Is that what you mean? Like some kind of internal guide that determines the nature of things?


I don't know about Fi sorry. I don't even think my wording was the best choice here. It's sort of a mathematical way of thinking really if I must put it into words.




> So the whole thing about grammar, it becomes so innate you don't notice it anymore? Is that what you mean?


Yes that's how it was with English 

With my native language, that obviously wasn't about grammar (after all everyone learns their native language as a small kid without thinking much), instead it was more about conceptual changes. Just got "deeper" and yes I got used to it and don't notice it anymore much.




> I just know that madhatter described something similar. More interested in the rules that govern language than how language infers the symbolic meaning in human expressions.


I'm not saying I don't care about meaning, just I guess I come at the issue of meaning from a different angle. A word entails a definition which then is its meaning and this definition can differ between communication partners. (I'm not necessarily happy with words as they are often not clear-cut definitions. What's a good definition and what isn't, that's another issue altogether, I come at it from a maths standpoint really. I can tell you more on IM, I don't want to bore people with it in this thread)




> I don't think I break things down into parts the way you describe it, anyway. Ideas can be broken down into parts as in, I take that I see to be the core of one idea and then that core is infused with another core, becoming the core of the core. So it's actually less about breaking things apart as in, you got several pieces that you play around with, as much it is a process of removing what is seen as unnecessary or superfluous information and focusing on what seems to be really relevant. It's like you are peeling a fruit, so you keep peeling until there is only the core left.


Yeah I know someone who described her thinking this way. I'm not sure if I only care about the core but I do like to simplify things this way. This actually kind of sounds Ti-ish here just maybe more Ti than I have?




> Analysis occurs when I try to match this understanding with what I already know and what is out there. When I wrote my academic theses, I spent very little researching and more about simply validating my ideas because my ideas already kind of existed "out there". I just needed to find the right source that reinforces my point of view, though my point of view exists independently of the source. The source can however be an inspiration like how Jungian dream analysis inspired my own dream analysis. In the end though, it becomes integrated within myself and my mind and a part of me, unrelated from the rest of the world. There is no logic to this understanding either, it's not of logical nature. It's much fairer to say that they're ideas or impressions of things. Very difficult to put into words.


I guess I'll ask you more about this elsewhere 





> Heh, I don't speak of meaning in terms of how well-defined something is. There are no definitions here. Rather, meaning is... a sense of meaning. That it feels personally meaningful, there's some kind of symbolic depth in the word(s).


 Guess you're still more introverted than I am 




> And I don't see you being LSI. You don't seem to be as rigid as Ti base types seem to be.


Yeah, that's my only problem with that typing even if some other things fit.





> The intent, purpose, idea language represents. Similar to semiotics I suppose.


Okay philosophy there... for another place 
(== not for this thread)




> To me details become superfluous. I want to cut away in order to get to the essentials.


Yeah that makes sense.




> I think it is a thing that is probably quite normal when you force yourself to consciously indulge more in an IM perspective that isn't your base.


Ti - as my creative function - to me doesn't feel foreign. Even when I try to make myself "indulge" in it more. It can be a bit draining but nothing too bad, still enjoyable enough.




> If I have to do it too much as a conscious thing. It feels like I become very rigid and I lose "flow" mentally. That's what I mean.


Well ok I can feel that about Ti.




> The observations are different in that the conclusions of the observations may be, or least have a different focus, but the phenomena they try to describe is the same. It all goes back to Jung and what he observed, who too, only observed one facet of it. They are thus all manifestations of the same core idea regarding human cognition. So I don't see them as different at all. They just look different but the core content isn't.


I think... devil's in the details... yeah.  We can discuss this on e.g. IM.


----------



## itsme45

bionic said:


> All this TL;DR. Welp, this thread went to shit.


Well apologies, I've cut my reply short, moving stuff elsewhere if needed. Leaving you gammas alone 




cyamitide said:


> It seems like they used questions to target specific information elements, like they have sections for Si, Ti, Fe, and then ask very poignant questions directed into that specific aspect that requires a complex answer. I don't remember the specifics and with using an automatic translator I'm sure something got lost in translation. These weren't general questions, like that ones I saw on the questionnaires posted here ("what is beauty", etc.) but seems more situational and specific. The people who judged them seemed to be all of the same school of socionics and supposedly they achieved very high accuracy with figuring out types from these written responses, but because it was a free service they said that they got inundated with typing requests so there was huge delay in result delivery.
> 
> They seemed to have put a lot of time into analyzing the replies. I saw one response sheet that they scanned and published as an example of their work and it was riddled with notes and commentary. That level of proficiency is really not attainable on this forum because the interest in socionics here is more on casual and cursory level, but when someone goes on to say "you can't tell my type because you've never met and don't know me" I highly doubt it. Socionics typing isn't rocket science and it doesn't take years and years of getting to know someone to typing them accurately.


Oh if you can find the questions it would be really appreciated.

I don't know about your last sentence. How do we determine "accurate"? If there's a consensus of typers is that "accurate"? Or what?


----------



## cyamitide

itsme45 said:


> Oh if you can find the questions it would be really appreciated.


I'll try but I don't think I've had them bookmarked.



itsme45 said:


> I don't know about your last sentence. How do we determine "accurate"? If there's a consensus of typers is that "accurate"? Or what?


I assume if the person is satisfied with the outcome, then they recommend the service to others. The service then gains positive reputation for providing quality results and more people try it out.


----------



## itsme45

cyamitide said:


> I'll try but I don't think I've had them bookmarked.


Oh oh man, didn't you save the questions somewhere?




> I assume if the person is satisfied with the outcome, then they recommend the service to others. The service then gains positive reputation for providing quality results and more people try it out.


How about the dissatisfied ones?


----------



## cyamitide

itsme45 said:


> Oh oh man, didn't you save the questions somewhere?


it was a while ago, i was searching for something else and accidentally bumped into it and was like "oh" and then continued searching, then only later recollecting about it



itsme45 said:


> How about the dissatisfied ones?


if the typer is good at what he/she does the the % of those dissatisfied is low, but there will always be some disagreement


----------



## liminalthought

I like what cyamitide is cooking in the forums. I expect some interesting stuff to happen in the coming days, it's coming.

loved mining this, quality thread: 
http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/127992-forms-thinking-12.html#post3970664


----------



## itsme45

cyamitide said:


> it was a while ago, i was searching for something else and accidentally bumped into it and was like "oh" and then continued searching, then only later recollecting about it


Well I hope you find it 




> if the typer is good at what he/she does the the % of those dissatisfied is low, but there will always be some disagreement


Well, how low is the question


----------



## liminalthought

itsme45 said:


> Well, how low is the question


If a standard is set, would you be the whip?


----------



## itsme45

liminalthought said:


> If a standard is set, would you be the whip?


What? Please rephrase


----------



## liminalthought

itsme45 said:


> What? Please rephrase


What are you confused about, particularly? Tell me what you thought it meant. 
(casual question)


----------



## itsme45

liminalthought said:


> What are you confused about, particularly? Tell me what you thought it meant.
> (casual question)


I couldn't interpret it at all.


----------



## liminalthought

itsme45 said:


> I couldn't interpret it at all.


Well, how did it register when you read it? How would you interpret it, life or death. 


Crap, I must be on the blacklist.


----------



## itsme45

liminalthought said:


> Well, how did it register when you read it? How would you interpret it, life or death.
> 
> 
> Crap, I must be on the blacklist.


I don't like to guess so no interpretation. Also because I don't know what kind of standard was meant. How about you tell me what it meant 

What blacklist?


----------



## liminalthought

itsme45 said:


> I don't like to guess so no interpretation. Also because I don't know what kind of standard was meant. How about you tell me what it meant
> 
> What blacklist?


Yes! not on blacklist. 

But you did interpret, you just don't want to tell me. Most likely you were right. 

What kind of standard do you think I'm talking about, according to this:


itsme45 said:


> Well, how low is the question


I AM THE QUESTIONER TODAY!


----------



## itsme45

liminalthought said:


> Yes! not on blacklist.


Lol this blacklist comment. I did have a problem with your attitudes before but it doesn't mean I've put you on some sort of ignore list.




> But you did interpret, you just don't want to tell me. Most likely you were right.
> 
> What kind of standard do you think I'm talking about, according to this:


There I was talking about how it could be that the service mentioned isn't that much better than amateur typers on random socionics forums and that this is easily an issue because what counts as "accurate typing" is not even clear - for obvious reasons. 

So if you were on the same page with me thus meaning some kind of standard of "accurate typing" and if you were asking me my opinion on such a standard, here it is: I don't believe in such a thing. Again, for obvious reasons. The whole theory would have to be very different for that to be possible.

If you meant something else, I have no idea what it is. I'm not going to run around in circles guessing.




> I AM THE QUESTIONER TODAY!


Oh so you want me to assume the role of the person not bothering to answer.


----------



## liminalthought

itsme45 said:


> Lol this blacklist comment. I did have a problem with your attitudes before but it doesn't mean I've put you on some sort of ignore list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There I was talking about how it could be that the service mentioned isn't that much better than amateur typers on random socionics forums and that this is easily an issue because what counts as "accurate typing" is not even clear - for obvious reasons.
> 
> So if you were on the same page with me thus meaning some kind of standard of "accurate typing" and if you were asking me my opinion on such a standard, here it is: I don't believe in such a thing. Again, for obvious reasons. The whole theory would have to be very different for that to be possible.
> 
> If you meant something else, I have no idea what it is. I'm not going to run around in circles guessing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh so you want me to assume the role of the person not bothering to answer.




But you asked "how low is the question". Meaning the answer to that question would be the hypothetical standard I'm talking about. Meaning you seek that answer given your question, given the purpose of a question: to request an answer.

would not the answer to "how low?" be a standard of the required quantity of "how low"? In any context.

in this context: the % of those dissatisfied

(we're entering the twilight zone here, lol)


----------



## cyamitide

itsme45 said:


> There I was talking about how it could be that the service mentioned isn't that much better than amateur typers on random socionics forums and that this is easily an issue because what counts as "accurate typing" is not even clear - for obvious reasons.


for the lack of other methods, an accurate typing is the one where the person feels like descriptions of their type and intertype relations form the greatest approximation to their actual experiences and state of being -- for most this isn't that difficult to figure out, and when somebody types you and that typing generally corresponds to your own experience then this is what constitutes an "accurate" typing

intertype relations have a way of functioning as a corrective feedback loop -- if you have been typed incorrectly, then your intertypes won't align with the descriptions

most don't have an issue figuring out their best fit type -- a few do for reasons of having a skewed self-concept, mistaking the desired for the real, having little interpersonal sensitivity, having very small social circles or generally being undersocialized, and other reasons -- in this case the intertype relations have a corrective effect -- as an example I've participated in a local socionics workshop that was conducted by a group that originally meets to discuss MBTI but several of us got interested in socionics -- there is an EII girl in this group who has picked her type as ESI saying that their EII descriptions are too nice and she isn't like that, she's rather argumentative and stubborn -- and there is a LIE girl in the same group who figured out her type right away -- the EII girl believes that they are duals, but if you watch their interaction from aside it looks nothing like dual relations -- once the LIE girl openly called her stupid, to which the EII girl responded with a long moralizing lecture, which the LIE girls simply brushed aside -- it was like the description of the semi-dual relations, the EII and LIE argue, but the EII can never get their aristocratic ethics over to LIE and the LIE was nonplussed by the EII's attempted Fi bitch slap -- that's how "inaccurate" typings start being obvious


----------



## Entropic

cyamitide said:


> for the lack of other methods, an accurate typing is the one where the person feels like descriptions of their type and intertype relations form the greatest approximation to their actual experiences and state of being -- for most this isn't that difficult to figure out, and when somebody types you and that typing generally corresponds to your own experience then this is what constitutes an "accurate" typing
> 
> intertype relations have a way of functioning as a corrective feedback loop -- if you have been typed incorrectly, then your intertypes won't align with the descriptions
> 
> most don't have an issue figuring out their best fit type -- a few do for reasons of having a skewed self-concept, mistaking the desired for the real, having little interpersonal sensitivity, having very small social circles or generally being undersocialized, and other reasons -- in this case the intertype relations have a corrective effect -- as an example I've participated in a local socionics workshop that was conducted by a group that originally meets to discuss MBTI but several of us got interested in socionics -- there is an EII girl in this group who has picked her type as ESI saying that their EII descriptions are too nice and she isn't like that, she's rather argumentative and stubborn -- and there is a LIE girl in the same group who figured out her type right away -- the EII girls think that they are duals, but if you watch their interaction from aside it looks nothing like that -- once the LIE girl openly called her stupid, to which the EII girl responded with a long moralizing lecture, which the LIE girls simply brushed aside -- it was like the description of the semi-dual relations, the EII and LIE argue, but the EII can never get their aristocratic ethics over to LIE and the LIE was nonplussed by the EII's attempted Fi bitch slap -- that's how "inaccurate" typings start being obvious


With regards to the above, have you seen the recent Iron Man movies? Would you agree that Tony Stark is LIE and Pepper Potts EII? When studying them in terms of intertype, I often feel they somewhat miss each other out all the time that would be the differences in preferred perception, then. Like how she sometimes Fi corrects him but he doesn't take it seriously enough because it lacks that Se weight to it and when she's concerned about health issues that would pertain to Si he just entirely disregards her in turn.


----------



## itsme45

liminalthought said:


> But you asked "how low is the question". Meaning the answer to that question would be the hypothetical standard I'm talking about. Meaning you seek that answer given your question, given the purpose of a question: to request an answer.
> 
> would not the answer to "how low?" be a standard of the required quantity of "how low"? In any context.
> 
> in this context: the % of those dissatisfied
> 
> (we're entering the twilight zone here, lol)


Well my point was really about issues with typing as explained.

My original question of "how low" was rhetorical. How do you even tell the % if you only get evidence of the positive feedback and not of the negative ones.

As for the question of which number/percentage to set such a limit at, that's not so clear-cut. Would you really think that e.g. 5.1% is too high but 4.9% is too low? I don't think in that way. This issue is more complex than to give a short simple answer of a number. Sure though that 50% would definitely be too high.

Bottom line, it's not as easy to interpret someone's lines on an internet forum without enough context.




cyamitide said:


> for the lack of other methods, an accurate typing is the one where the person feels like descriptions of their type and intertype relations form the greatest approximation to their actual experiences and state of being -- for most this isn't that difficult to figure out, and when somebody types you and that typing generally corresponds to your own experience then this is what constitutes an "accurate" typing


How about it isn't difficult for most because they are entrenched in cognitive bias and only consider a small part of their being to try and confirm to typer's suggested type?

Of course I can be wrong and maybe some of those people do have a great picture of their own self.




> intertype relations have a way of functioning as a corrective feedback loop -- if you have been typed incorrectly, then your intertypes won't align with the descriptions


How about someone who doesn't align with that part of theory either?




> most don't have an issue figuring out their best fit type -- a few do for reasons of having a skewed self-concept, mistaking the desired for the real, having little interpersonal sensitivity, having very small social circles or generally being undersocialized, and other reasons


Those points are not too bad though. Hmm, I might have that "little interpersonal sensitivity" issue and yes undersocialized too. 




> -- in this case the intertype relations have a corrective effect -- as an example I've participated in a local socionics workshop that was conducted by a group that originally meets to discuss MBTI but several of us got interested in socionics -- there is an EII girl in this group who has picked her type as ESI saying that their EII descriptions are too nice and she isn't like that, she's rather argumentative and stubborn -- and there is a LIE girl in the same group who figured out her type right away -- the EII girls think that they are duals, but if you watch their interaction from aside it looks nothing like that -- once the LIE girl openly called her stupid, to which the EII girl responded with a long moralizing lecture, which the LIE girls simply brushed aside -- it was like the description of the semi-dual relations, the EII and LIE argue, but the EII can never get their aristocratic ethics over to LIE and the LIE was nonplussed by the EII's attempted Fi bitch slap -- that's how "inaccurate" typings start being obvious


Interesting. Oh, god, "long moralizing lecture". Yeah, I wouldn't want that. But we're talking about in the other thread now 

In any case, yeah I would find it fun seeing an analysis of my interactions with others. My limited experiences can only be based on accepting other people's self-typings. And it's all online, I don't know types of offline people. So whatever that's worth... So far I'm finding that I generally like SEE's and EIE's. Rest of the types are a mixed bag or plain bad. I have a feeling that I wouldn't fit the theory here because I'm not seeing any duality with any self-typed IEI so far. Even ILI fares much better.


----------



## liminalthought

itsme45 said:


> Well my point was really about issues with typing as explained.
> 
> My original question of "how low" was rhetorical. How do you even tell the % if you only get evidence of the positive feedback and not of the negative ones.
> 
> As for the question of which number/percentage to set such a limit at, that's not so clear-cut. Would you really think that e.g. 5.1% is too high but 4.9% is too low? I don't think in that way. This issue is more complex than to give a short simple answer of a number. Sure though that 50% would definitely be too high.
> 
> Bottom line, it's not as easy to interpret someone's lines on an internet forum without enough context.


You asked as if you actually wanted to know, given the context of your conversation with cyamitide. An estimate would suffice. 

Anyways, about your last line: 

Yeah, I see the problem. There's probably a lot of body language I'm missing out on from you. I _wish _I could see it. I always get this with Se doms online, I'm always missing tons of subtle language that can only be read if in person.


----------



## itsme45

> Yeah, I see the problem. There's probably a lot of body language I'm missing out on from you. I _wish _I could see it. I always get this with Se doms online, I'm always missing tons of subtle language that can only be read if in person.


Ah yeah well it's not likely you live in my country 

I also wish I could see this sort of stuff but online will always stay a two-dimensional experience.


----------



## Figure

cyamitide said:


> for the lack of other methods, an accurate typing is the one where the person feels like descriptions of their type and intertype relations form the greatest approximation to their actual experiences and state of being -- for most this isn't that difficult to figure out, and when somebody types you and that typing generally corresponds to your own experience then this is what constitutes an "accurate" typing


Have you found a way to trace the overall characteristics of each interaction? That seems to be an area of missing clarity. I know what you mean by picking up on your own archetypal interactions with other types and watching them unfold with similar characteristics outside of your own interactions between people who share the same relationship, but that seems to be an area where people who do not value Ni as much have issues noticing. 

In other words, I think that would be difficult to describe in a universal way.


----------



## itsme45

Figure said:


> Have you found a way to trace the overall characteristics of each interaction? That seems to be an area of missing clarity. I know what you mean by picking up on your own archetypal interactions with other types and watching them unfold with similar characteristics outside of your own interactions between people who share the same relationship, but that seems to be an area where people who do not value Ni as much have issues noticing.
> 
> In other words, I think that would be difficult to describe in a universal way.


I like your post... just a question, why do you think this is a Ni thing? Ne can't be any good at this?


----------



## Entropic

Figure said:


> Have you found a way to trace the overall characteristics of each interaction? That seems to be an area of missing clarity. I know what you mean by picking up on your own archetypal interactions with other types and watching them unfold with similar characteristics outside of your own interactions between people who share the same relationship, but that seems to be an area where people who do not value Ni as much have issues noticing.
> 
> In other words, I think that would be difficult to describe in a universal way.


I find that trying to explain what I'm seeing with Ni especially to types who don't seem to value Ni or value it as much as I do, is really difficult if not close to impossible. And it doesn't matter what it is I _am_ pointing out to them when it comes to type. It just seems most people just aren't wired to think and detect patterns this way and it's quite frustrating when I then try to explain why I think this type, and since they can't see it the information itself gets automatically devalued. 

Of course, this itself is telling from an intertype perspective, but again, people don't always seem to think or perceive reality this way at all and may attribute it to a whole other bunch of things than intertype. At which point you are back at square one.


----------



## Entropic

itsme45 said:


> I like your post... just a question, why do you think this is a Ni thing? Ne can't be any good at this?


Si maybe, in its own sense. Pe doesn't really streamline information like Pi does.


----------



## Figure

itsme45 said:


> I like your post... just a question, why do you think this is a Ni thing? Ne can't be any good at this?


Ne can usually understand it fine, may be curious about it, but they don't tend to make it a single way of using the theory since they're able to see many other uses/ways of looking at it. They could view type the way we're talking about, but they probably wouldn't care to be funneled in that way. 

Ni tends to choose one route and use it to find underlying relationships over time. I should have added before too that Te plays a role in it - I'm not sure IEI like to "map" in the same way, though they definitely are off noticing their own patterns as well.


----------



## liminalthought

Immemorial said:


> Anyone have any decent resources on subtypes? I don't recall ever finding anything substantial on them.


Someone has been adding new subtype information to wikisocion. They started updated the ILI-Ni description last week, and I think they finished the ILI-Te description this week (I watch that site like a hawk). A lot of it is new wording, and stuff that I've never seen before from anywhere else. It's much less vague than before and it makes a lot more sense to me now. 

ILI subtypes - Wikisocion

Holy Shit!!!!


----------



## liminalthought

GLORIOUS!!!!! Dare I say, mindgasm

ILI-Te 

Character
Quickly assesses a situation or a new project from the point of view of its feasibility and practicality. Likes realistic goals, while the methods of achieving them he finds himself or through intermediaries. Inclined to make rational actions. Takes note of all the details of the case presented to him, emphasizing main ones and brushing unimportant ones aside. Is able to extract maximum returns while applying minimum of effort. Capable of making accurate economic and political predictions. Encourages people to be active, but also warns against any activities that are useless in his opinion. Notices all the contradictions and imperfections of his surrounding world. Due to a developed sense of skepticism it is difficult for him to properly assess the potential of new ventures and people's abilities. While calling for prudence, he can cool any excessive enthusiasm with subtle irony.

Possesses organizational skills. Tries to be able in his affairs and knowledgeable over a variety of issues. Appreciative of quality work and high qualifications. Has an interest in laws and regulations, collects necessary and interesting information. It's hard to reconvince him in an argument because he often proves his point of view supplying factual information. Sufficiently stubborn, does not yield to direct pressure.

May have a wide circle of professional or business acquaintances, but rarely becomes truly close with anyone. Fearing becoming dependent on someone tries to appear self-sufficient and confident in himself. Despite this, he is often in need of moral support. Likes people who with their optimism can instill confidence in success. Critically perceives the shortcomings of others. Sometimes cannot withhold himself from making a critical remark, due to which it is difficult for him to maintain smooth relations with others.

Internally emotional, but tries to be self-sustained. Dislikes falling to extremes, but if his principles are violated he may flare up. Usually restrained in expression of his feelings, dislikes making compliments, considers that it's more sincere to talk of shortcomings. In this case, with his straightforwardness may not spare another's self-esteem. Poorly tolerates discomfort, both external and internal, and therefore tries to smooth out a bad impression left by something he has said.

Thrifty, economical and practical. Dislikes excesses, can suffice with less. Skillfully handles objects and finances. Good with handling his documentation. Shows creativity in handling practical matters. Can adapt and extract use from things that to others seem to have outlived their use. Modest in his appearance and in everyday life. Feels awkward claiming for himself any material privileges or rewards. Does not attribute much value to accessories, but feels insecure if his appearance does not match the tastes of his society. Rather passive when resting. Due to weak self-discipline and certain measure of inertia he underestimates the role of a healthy lifestyle, due to which his health may suffer.

The Triumphs of Socionics !!!!:angry::angry::angry::angry:


----------



## liminalthought

For @_Figure_
SLI-Te 
SLI subtypes - Wikisocion


For @_ephemereality_
LII-Ti
LII subtypes - Wikisocion 


Under the heading "character"


----------



## Figure

liminalthought said:


> For @_Figure_
> SLI-Te
> SLI subtypes - Wikisocion
> 
> 
> For @_ephemereality_
> LII-Ti
> LII subtypes - Wikisocion
> 
> 
> Under the heading "character"


You have two options:



Substantiate it
Do nothing

If you do nothing, keep in mind this is the 3rd time you've offered unsolicited typing.


----------



## Helios

liminalthought said:


> For @_Figure_
> SLI-Te
> SLI subtypes - Wikisocion
> 
> 
> For @_ephemereality_
> LII-Ti
> LII subtypes - Wikisocion
> 
> 
> Under the heading "character"


You are aware that you can't go around telling people that they are mistyped if it's not within the framework of a typing thread, or if they never asked for your opinion, right? Forum rules exist for a reason.
@Figure, nice 1 fix you're sporting there.


----------



## liminalthought

Ananael said:


> You are aware that you can't go around telling people that they are mistyped if it's not within the framework of a typing thread, or if they never asked for your opinion, right? Forum rules exist for a reason.
> @_Figure_, nice 1 fix you're sporting there.


Oh yeah, there's that type bullying rule. Sorry, Eph. Sorry, Figure, I guess now is not the time to substantiate it so I'll take the second option.

"Do not harass or bully other members, this includes "type-bullying" which is the persistent and unsolicited public questioning of another member's type when they have not expressed an interest."
_memorized 

_


Figure said:


> You have two options:
> 
> 
> Substantiate it
> Do nothing


Is this your express interest for me to substantiate?


----------



## Figure

liminalthought said:


> Is this your express interest for me to substantiate?


No, it was to give a reason as to why you see our types differently than we do. Other than "disagrees with me = wants comfort." I'm fine with having a real discussion on my type or anyone else's (a serious one - not like before where we were simply being dicks to each other on purpose), but following someone around a forum and chiming in every time they say something is ridiculous. 

In other words if you feel that strongly then discussing it is fine. Otherwise, cut the unsolicited typing here on out or I'm reporting it.


----------



## itsme45

liminalthought said:


> For @_Figure_
> SLI-Te
> SLI subtypes - Wikisocion
> 
> 
> For @_ephemereality_
> LII-Ti
> LII subtypes - Wikisocion
> 
> 
> Under the heading "character"


You didn't mention me but... SLI subtypes don't fit me


----------



## Helios

itsme45 said:


> You didn't mention me but... SLI subtypes don't fit me


Are you still debating your type at the moment?

SLI subtypes don't fit me either, lol.


----------



## itsme45

Ananael said:


> Are you still debating your type at the moment?
> 
> SLI subtypes don't fit me either, lol.


No but I'm always open to input so if you have any thoughts feel free to say.

That particular comment was because liminalthought guessed SLI from one single line in an earlier interaction with some LII.

Btw weren't you LIE before?


----------



## Helios

itsme45 said:


> No but I'm always open to input so if you have any thoughts feel free to say.
> 
> That particular comment was because liminalthought guessed SLI from one single line in an earlier interaction with some LII.
> 
> Btw weren't you LIE before?


I'm trolling types again. 
But yes, I still type at LIE for all intents and purposes. But someone did make a very good case for ILE as an alt type.


----------



## liminalthought

itsme45 said:


> No but I'm always open to input so if you have any thoughts feel free to say.
> 
> That particular comment was because liminalthought guessed SLI from one single line in an earlier interaction with some LII.
> 
> Btw weren't you LIE before?


C'mon, I was still rusty from coming out of hibernation. I was reluctant to make any points at all during that time.

Then, weird stuff started happening and I had no choice but to study.


----------



## itsme45

liminalthought said:


> C'mon, I was still rusty from coming out of hibernation. I was reluctant to make any points at all during that time.
> 
> Then, weird stuff started happening and I had no choice but to study.


Lol. Yes that does sound like weird stuff 

Anyway if you want to say anything on my type I have a type thread.


----------



## liminalthought

itsme45 said:


> Lol. Yes that does sound like weird stuff
> 
> Anyway if you want to say anything on my type I have a type thread.


If I could put a name to it, I would say I was in Ni troll mode back then (as in 10 pages back then). Wild and unpolished ILI's usually come in that state.

I don't really have anything to say about your type, all interaction so far with you has me convinced that you are SLE.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Well, I began to read about socionics thanks to random curiosity, and from what I've checked ILI seems to be accurate for me, but I haven't pinpointed the proper subtype, so maybe later I will see if I figure out that part.


----------



## itsme45

liminalthought said:


> Wild and unpolished ILI's usually come in that state.


ooh that sounds really interesting, a wild ILI ;p


----------



## liminalthought

Mugino Shizuri said:


> Well, I began to read about socionics thanks to random curiosity, and from what I've checked ILI seems to be accurate for me, but I haven't pinpointed the proper subtype, so maybe later I will see if I figure out that part.


Yes! We have another genuine ILI. 
The Gamma army grows.

Welcome


----------



## liminalthought

itsme45 said:


> ooh that sounds really interesting, a wild ILI ;p


:crazy:


----------



## Dragheart Luard

liminalthought said:


> Yes! We have another genuine ILI.
> The Gamma army grows.
> 
> Welcome


Thanks for the welcome. BTW, did you said army? maybe I will bring a super robot, you know that those would be useful in a war, even if they defy physical laws.


----------



## Entropic

I have spoken to Mugino Shizuri in private, and I fail to see how Mugino is not an ILI, though perhaps a more fluffier variant than what I am used to.


----------



## Helios

liminalthought said:


> Yes! We have another genuine ILI.
> The Gamma army grows.
> 
> Welcome


I wonder who the general is.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

ephemereality said:


> I have spoken to Mugino Shizuri in private, and I fail to see how Mugino is not an ILI, though perhaps a more fluffier variant than what I am used to.


I think that being raised by an NF nerfed my harsh side (I suspect that my mom is an ENFP, and she annoys me when I'm harsh and show my lack of politeness IRL, but I think that is because she doesn't like that I could scare people, like she does when she's being blunt, so maybe she's projecting her own issues into me), but I still can release my inner troll, even if I use it more for pwning people in some anime forums, plus I also get annoyed by some people IRL, specially the inefficient and close minded folks grate my nerves.

About fluff, don't worry, fluffly things give diabetes to me, like some fangirls that care too much about OTPs and similar ideas that I find uninteresting.


----------



## Entropic

Ananael said:


> I wonder who the general is.


Why would a gamma army have a general being a democratic quadra? In pure democracy power lies within all the individuals, not just one.


----------



## Helios

ephemereality said:


> Why would a gamma army have a general being a democratic quadra? In pure democracy power lies within all the individuals, not just one.


Pure democracy only exists in theory. For even the Greeks who coined the term didn't include everyone in the election process. I don't think democratic values as described in socionics imply democracy as outlined in styles of government. If we are going to continue with such a line of reasoning, I don't see how the concept of an army would appeal to a democratic quadra (operating under the definition of democratic as employed by socionics theory if course) if army carries a connotation of a group united by some defining characteristic or implies some kind of emphasis on hierarchy and power dynamics.


----------



## Entropic

Ananael said:


> Pure democracy only exists in theory. For even the Greeks who coined the term didn't include everyone in the election process. I don't think democratic values as described in socionics imply democracy as outlined in styles of government. If we are going to continue with such a line of reasoning, I don't see how the concept of an army would appeal to a democratic quadra (operating under the definition of democratic as employed by socionics theory if course) if army carries a connotation of a group united by some defining characteristic or implies some kind of emphasis on hierarchy and power dynamics.


Whether pure democracy exists only theory was irrelevant to my claim. The main point was that the gamma quadra is democratic and would thus not need a general to represent it, because gamma quadra sees each individual as their own, which is why it is democratic. Each individual therefore represents itself. 

Furthermore, an army can also be formed based on the idea of commonly shared values. A military army does not have to be shaped around the notions of hierarchy. Guerilla armies are not shaped around this idea of what an army is, and a (military/resistance) movement can be very organized without being centralized. And notions of power is inherent to the gamma quadra being an Se-valuing type. 

So in summary, the idea of a general is that the general represents the army. It's an example of aristocratic values.


----------



## Helios

ephemereality said:


> Whether pure democracy exists only theory was irrelevant to my claim. The main point was that the gamma quadra is democratic and would thus not need a general to represent it, because gamma quadra sees each individual as their own, which is why it is democratic. Each individual therefore represents itself.


Your interpretation of democracy only existing in theory and not in say reality makes your claim irrelevant. How is a general representative of an army, when the function of a general is to provide order and structure for an army. If individuals represent themselves, there's no need for an army since army implies collectivism. 



> Furthermore, an army can also be formed based on the idea of commonly shared values. A military army does not have to be shaped around the notions of hierarchy. Guerilla armies are not shaped around this idea of what an army is, and a (military/resistance) movement can be very organized without being centralized. And notions of power is inherent to the gamma quadra being an Se-valuing type.


Did you not read the part where I spoke of an army also being defined in terms of shared defining characteristics? It seems that you didn't. Shared values also promotes collectivity, which is contradictory to gamma values if everything is all about individualism.



> So in summary, the idea of a general is that the general represents the army. It's an example of aristocratic values.


This does not follow from the premises you've outlined earlier and is pretty much irrelevant. Army can represent aristocratic values with or without a general, as I've shown earlier. Try again.


----------



## Immemorial

liminalthought said:


> Yes! We have another genuine ILI.
> The Gamma army grows.
> 
> Welcome


I find it unacceptable that you now have an avatar.


----------



## liminalthought

People are taking this army/organization stuff as too much of a red flag. I'm sure there are plenty of gammas in the army, as much as any other quadra. I highly doubt there are no gammas in the army who've become an important piece in organization. Common sense.


----------



## liminalthought

Immemorial said:


> I find it unacceptable that you now have an avatar.


Is it creepy enough?
(no match for yours, obviously)


----------



## Immemorial

liminalthought said:


> Is it creepy enough?


Don't load the questions, load the fucking cannons, boy; there are wars to be fought, somewhere.


----------



## liminalthought

Immemorial said:


> Don't load the questions


?


----------



## Entropic

Ananael said:


> Your interpretation of democracy only existing in theory and not in say reality makes your claim irrelevant.


Why so, when we were talking about hypotheticals to begin with? 



> How is a general representative of an army, when the function of a general is to provide order and structure for an army. If individuals represent themselves, there's no need for an army since army implies collectivism.


Because the general, just like a king, represents the group of people he is organizing/ruling/leading, just like a CEO represents his/her company. 

Why must army imply collectivism?


> Did you not read the part where I spoke of an army also being defined in terms of shared defining characteristics? It seems that you didn't. Shared values also promotes collectivity, which is contradictory to gamma values if everything is all about individualism.


I did, and I provided a counter-example where an army can be organized based on shared values and I also provided with an example of an army that is not organized by general praxis, but is still considered a form of army, being a defensive military force. 

And no, of course gammas can share values or how would gammas otherwise even be able to communicate with each other at all without constantly fighting and arguing over Fi values? Gammas however, recognize that other people's values are their own, but it doesn't go against the idea that they can join any group of people who they feel share their personal sentiments regarding certain subjects. I support certain political parties because they share my values of how to lead a successful society. A gamma collective is not a collective because they all become one cluster, but it is a collective of people, of individuals that in this case all happened to represent or believe in the same idea. 



> This does not follow from the premises you've outlined earlier and is pretty much irrelevant. Army can represent aristocratic values with or without a general, as I've shown earlier. Try again.


I never mentioned that armies cannot represent aristocratic values without a general. I merely brought up that the idea of a general is an example of aristocratic values. Try again.

And of course there are gammas in the army, precisely because they think fighting for whatever they are fighting for, or protecting one's country or whatever, is a desirable goal. Not so strange. Gammas may distance themselves from Fe, but it doesn't mean gammas shy all groups.


----------



## Helios

liminalthought said:


> People are taking this army/organization stuff as too much of a red flag. I'm sure there are plenty of gammas in the army, as much as any other quadra. I highly doubt there are no gammas in the army who've become an important piece in organization. Common sense.


There's no harm in debating though, mate. Everything you've outlined is pretty much self evident~


----------



## Immemorial

liminalthought said:


> ?


"Is it creepy *enough*?" <- Presupposes that I find it creepy. As opposed to "is it creepy?"


----------



## liminalthought

Ananael said:


> There's no harm in debating though, mate. Everything you've outlined is pretty much self evident~


I think this one is yours though, you own it so far. I haven't been sparked much.


----------



## Helios

liminalthought said:


> I think this one is yours though, you own it so far. I haven't been sparked much.


That's fair. Though I will say that I'm pretty much done debating with the person who started the conversation in the first place.


----------



## liminalthought

Immemorial said:


> "Is it creepy *enough*?" <- Presupposes that I find it creepy. As opposed to "is it creepy?"


You're being too careful. What if I (not you) supposed (of myself) it was creepy and asked you if you thought it creepy and enough of it, would this automatically mean I supposed you found it creepy? of course you could always say "no I don't find it creepy". In this case, you supposed that I presupposed. 

Sure, the question was a step ahead. But must it necessarily mean I'm binding you? How do you know which path I took, or if I even chose at all, in the step before with "is it creepy?" With options "yes, no, and unanswered" ? You supposed that I presupposed of you that the path chosen was ”yes". You chose to believe that I chose yes, your choice being the only choice as I never chose explicitly. Who is making the choices for the other now, huh? Ahaha.:tongue:


----------



## Immemorial

liminalthought said:


> You're being too careful. What if I (not you) supposed (of myself) it was creepy and asked you if you thought it creepy and enough of it, would this automatically mean I supposed you found it creepy? of course you could always say "no I don't find it creepy". In this case, you supposed that I presupposed.
> 
> Sure, the question was a step ahead. But must it necessarily mean I'm binding you? How do you know which path I took, or if I even chose at all, in the step before with "is it creepy?" With options "yes, no, and unanswered" ? You supposed that I presupposed of you that the path chosen was ”yes". You chose to believe that I chose yes, your choice being the only choice as I never chose explicitly. Who is making the choices for the other now, huh? Ahaha.:tongue:


Then you shouldn't have been so vague, sunshine.


----------



## liminalthought

Immemorial said:


> Then you shouldn't have been so vague, sunshine.


I will remember to keep things un-vague and as clear and direct as possible as a custom order to replies to immemorial, so picky. Wouldn't you like to figure that out on your own?

loaded is today's fun word isn't it? I guess you read my post over "loaded" (lol)
(somewhere else in the forum)


----------



## Immemorial

liminalthought said:


> I will remember to keep things un-vague and as clear and direct as possible as a custom order to replies to immemorial, so picky. Wouldn't you like to figure that out on your own?


Try harder.


----------



## liminalthought

Immemorial said:


> Try harder.


How much harder? I see you're trying to be direct, I guess our deal is one sided.

(again, you're too careful. And now you're shutting in with a two word sentence)


----------



## Immemorial

liminalthought said:


> How much harder? I see you're trying to be direct, I guess our deal is one sided.


There was no deal to begin with. 

This meeting is over, the office is closed.


----------



## liminalthought

Immemorial said:


> There was no deal to begin with.
> 
> This meeting is over, the office is closed.


Well, there goes my chance to pick up more info on immemorial. I'll be camping outside the office.

(where does this hostility come from)


----------



## Sparkling

Where are my lovely LIE?
:/


----------



## Entropic

boogie said:


> Where are my lovely LIE?
> :/


@Sclerelat

Fuck, I don't know how to spell it. Anyway.


----------



## liminalthought

ephemereality said:


> @Sclerelat
> 
> Fuck, I don't know how to spell it. Anyway.


Differences aside, 

LOL.


----------



## Immemorial

liminalthought said:


> Well, there goes my chance to pick up more info on immemorial. I'll be camping outside the office.
> 
> (where does this hostility come from)


If you're detecting hostility, then your radar is fucked. The dialogue was going nowhere + I wanted to go watch Dexter.

(such bracket)


----------



## liminalthought

Immemorial said:


> If you're detecting hostility, then your radar is fucked. The dialogue was going nowhere + I wanted to go watch Dexter.
> 
> (such bracket)




Ok. I found what I was looking for.


----------



## bionic

ephemereality said:


> @Sclerelat
> 
> Fuck, I don't know how to spell it. Anyway.


He's not an LIE. He's an LII that is delusional to his typing. Also not an 8.


*raises hand* LIE that needs food here.


----------



## liminalthought

bionic said:


> He's not an LIE. He's an LII that is delusional to his typing. Also not an 8.
> 
> 
> *raises hand* LIE that needs food here.


I freaked out when it said ILE. I was like "what is going on!?"

(not relating to this)
Aside: Also, in general, _something _is going on. The field has changed. I'm not sure what, but something is wrong. What changed?


----------



## itsme45

ephemereality said:


> @Sclerelat
> 
> Fuck, I don't know how to spell it. Anyway.


 @Scelerat right?


----------



## bionic

liminalthought said:


> I freaked out when it said ILE. I was like "what is going on!?"
> 
> (not relating to this)
> Aside: Also, in general, _something _is going on. The field has changed. I'm not sure what, but something is wrong. What changed?


Thanks for pointing out my typo. :|



........ Are you ok? You seem out of it.


----------



## bionic

itsme45 said:


> @Scelerat right?


Oh, look at you. Starting a fire. I expect nothing less.


----------



## liminalthought

bionic said:


> Thanks for pointing out my typo. :|
> 
> 
> 
> ........ Are you ok? You seem out of it.


What might happen. I was just thinking ahead to myself, a heads up for myself :wink:. _Forecasting the weather. _


----------



## Scelerat

bionic said:


> He's not an LIE. He's an LII that is delusional to his typing. Also not an 8.
> 
> 
> *raises hand* LIE that needs food here.


You would be number 15 or so on this forum that gives me your opinion on it. But then, unsolicited typing is against the rules.


----------



## Entropic

bionic said:


> He's not an LIE. He's an LII that is delusional to his typing. Also not an 8.
> 
> 
> *raises hand* LIE that needs food here.


What reasoning do you have for that? I would say based on what I've observed, he's correctly typed at least in socionics. I cannot comment on enneagram since I would need something more about his life than seeing how he seems to logically reason around things.


----------



## Helios

boogie said:


> Where are my lovely LIE?
> :/


If I swap labels again, would that count? 
*grabs popcorn*


----------



## bionic

Scelerat said:


> Well, I would love to hear your argument, but seeing as you're in the habit of making assertions in place of them I doubt I'll be indulged.
> 
> You would be number 15 or so on this forum that gives me your opinion on it.


Post a pic of yourself then. Let me VI you.

You gave me enough evidence to push the possibility of 8 out. That comment above ^ was more passive-aggressive than direct. You have a habit of doing this, repeatedly. When I barked at you for ruining my thread that I made for Monkey, you walked away and just left... instead of apologizing or even making some sort of statement as to WHY you made your quips. That is enough to tell me you are not an 8. Certainly not an 8w7. You are not reactive, certainly for a supposed ENTJ 8w7. There is nothing 'grounding' about your posts. All 8s have this 'gravitas' about them and you lack it. That is the most telling thing. Also, when you make posts while you are in stress... you become delusional to reality. As if, you aren't connected. If someone is aggressive toward you; you freak out, make a passive-aggressive delusional remark, or cower away. This is more indicative of Se-polr to me. When you got your head on right; you usually just cower and don't care to follow through. You don't debate with people to 'weed them out' or to 'understand their boundaries'. You do it simply for intellectual reasons. There is nothing animalistic about you... and I'm sure you'll probably take this as me personally attacking you then solidifying my reasoning. <--- another difference between Alpha & Gamma values.


----------



## Scelerat

bionic said:


> Post a pic of yourself then. Let me VI you.


You made the assertion without seeing a picture of me, thus you've already made a conclusion that you've elected to make public in breach of the rules and that's thus the conclusion you have to back up. Of course, if you insist on continuing this, it will be through no solicitation for you to type me.

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/135075-why-visual-identification-bad.html


----------



## Dragheart Luard

From what I've read, using VI for typing is too unreliable, heck, maybe it's more reliable to flip a coin for knowing the type of someone. Still this seems to be more interesting that doing my lab report, so I will see if this discussion ends into something funny. *grabs some cookies for looking how this will continue*


----------



## bionic

Scelerat said:


> You made the assertion without seeing a picture of me, thus you've already made a conclusion that you've elected to make public in breach of the rules and that's thus the conclusion you have to back up. Of course, if you insist on continuing this, it will be through no solicitation for you to type me.
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/135075-why-visual-identification-bad.html


You've been around the ENTJ section for a year. I've seen the way you interact with everyone and I'm used to your writing style by now.

So why are you using Aestrivex's opinion of VI to deter the attention away after I asked you to post a pic of yourself? You're going off topic.


----------



## itsme45

bionic said:


> Oh, look at you. Starting a fire. I expect nothing less.


Haha well no problem with starting fires 

And yeah it was only fair to properly mention him anyway. (And correcting the typo blahblah)


----------



## liminalthought

Mugino Shizuri said:


> From what I've read, using VI for typing is too unreliable, heck, maybe it's more reliable to flip a coin for knowing the type of someone. Still this seems to be more interesting that doing my lab report, so I will see if this discussion ends into something funny. *grabs some cookies for looking how this will continue*


Further developing this idea, VI works to some extent. But, the image or the "material" used for VI is only a result of the influence of a person's IM elements on themselves as they developed.


----------



## bionic

Mugino Shizuri said:


> From what I've read, using VI for typing is too unreliable, heck, maybe it's more reliable to flip a coin for knowing the type of someone. Still this seems to be more interesting that doing my lab report, so I will see if this discussion ends into something funny. *grabs some cookies for looking how this will continue*


It's not unreliable if 1. You understand VI & Socionics 2. You have a couple pics of full frontal face pictures 3. You use the photos you have against other reliable types to solidify your findings. 4. Also, Socionics has other factors like romance styles, interaction styles, and quadra values. It's like putting a puzzle together. If something doesn't add up, then you know that person probably doesn't fit the type (or vice versa depending on the situation).


----------



## itsme45

bionic said:


> You gave me enough evidence to push the possibility of 8 out. That comment above ^ was more passive-aggressive than direct. You have a habit of doing this, repeatedly. When I barked at you for ruining my thread that I made for Monkey, you walked away and just left... instead of apologizing or even making some sort of statement as to WHY you made your quips. That is enough to tell me you are not an 8. Certainly not an 8w7. You are not reactive, certainly for a supposed ENTJ 8w7. There is nothing 'grounding' about your posts. All 8s have this 'gravitas' about them and you lack it. That is the most telling thing. Also, when you make posts while you are in stress... you become delusional to reality. As if, you aren't connected. If someone is aggressive toward you; you freak out, make a passive-aggressive delusional remark, or cower away. This is more indicative of Se-polr to me. When you got your head on right; you usually just cower and don't care to follow through. You don't debate with people to 'weed them out' or to 'understand their boundaries'. You do it simply for intellectual reasons. There is nothing animalistic about you... and I'm sure you'll probably take this as me personally attacking you then solidifying my reasoning. <--- another difference between Alpha & Gamma values.


I don't know him at all but how does an Ni ego 8 work? How would that be stereotypical 8? I mean a LIE surely can be 8 but I can easily see how it would not be a stereotypical manifestation.

Also why must weak Se mean PoLR? Can't it be Se HA of LIE?

A nitpick, how do you even determine the degree of "animalisticness" of a person online? Lol really, impossible.




liminalthought said:


> Further developing this idea, VI works to some extent. But, the image or the "material" used for VI is only a result of the influence of a person's IM elements on themselves as they developed.


Hmm more elaboration of what kind of influence would this be?




bionic said:


> It's not unreliable if 1. You understand VI & Socionics 2. You have a couple pics of full frontal face pictures 3. You use the photos you have against other reliable types to solidify your findings. 4. Also, Socionics has other factors like romance styles, interaction styles, and quadra values. It's like putting a puzzle together. If something doesn't add up, then you know that person probably doesn't fit the type (or vice versa depending on the situation).


I find VI very unreliable not just because theoretically it makes no sense whatsoever to attribute any strong correlation between type and facial structure but also when I tried VI I had too much variety in the responses. Much less variety when judging my answers to a questionnaire. So both in theory and in practice VI fails big.

Also do you really believe that if something of so many things doesn't add up then the person cannot be that type? What if none of the 16 possible types will allow for a picture that has everything matching? I wager most people will not have a perfect match of any type if we must really try to account for all those socionics factors you listed.


----------



## Scelerat

bionic said:


> Post a pic of yourself then. Let me VI you.
> 
> You gave me enough evidence to push the possibility of 8 out. That comment above ^ was more passive-aggressive than direct. You have a habit of doing this, repeatedly. When I barked at you for ruining my thread that I made for Monkey, you walked away and just left... instead of apologizing or even making some sort of statement as to WHY you made your quips. That is enough to tell me you are not an 8. Certainly not an 8w7. You are not reactive, certainly for a supposed ENTJ 8w7. There is nothing 'grounding' about your posts. All 8s have this 'gravitas' about them and you lack it. That is the most telling thing. Also, when you make posts while you are in stress... you become delusional to reality. As if, you aren't connected. If someone is aggressive toward you; you freak out, make a passive-aggressive delusional remark, or cower away. This is more indicative of Se-polr to me. When you got your head on right; you usually just cower and don't care to follow through. You don't debate with people to 'weed them out' or to 'understand their boundaries'. You do it simply for intellectual reasons. There is nothing animalistic about you... and I'm sure you'll probably take this as me personally attacking you then solidifying my reasoning. <--- another difference between Alpha & Gamma values.



I have to say, you're referencing past interactions a lot here, in the thread you made for Monkey you showed how much you value the tradition in your culture. I don't take it as a personal attack, it's you behaving counter-phobically towards me based on our prior interactions, and attempting to justify a quip you made that you cannot back up by reasoning and evidence. 

Did you notice that the main points in your reasoning were: 

- The monkey thread, that couldn't be me "weeding your out" and "testing your boundaries"? 

- Gravitas - cannot be measured, entirely a subjective valuation. 

- Not engaging in disputes that would inevitably lead to the town of Banhammer, population me -> SE-polr. As you know opposed to "If I don't get out of here now I'll rip this person's head off." Not to mention that it requires you attributing motives to me, so if those are flawed, you conclusion would likewise be flawed. 

- Delusional from reality. First you should keep in mind that delusional would suffice. Secondly, considering that you just made a post after I asked you to explain your reasoning, where the entirety of your justification for your conclusion is in your head, well do I really need to explain how silly that is? 

You see when you attribute motivations behind observed behavior you always run the risk of wrongful attribution. In your case your perception of me is negative from the beginning and thus you may even be inclined to project some of the more negative characteristics of yourself onto me, I believe Sigmund Freud mentioned that at some point. 

If we analyze your behavior it includes: 

Passive aggressive behavior: 
- Making snarky remarks about people - You did this in the first post where you typed me without having been solicited to do so. 
- Your post has resentment between the lines, check. 
- Making comments behind people's backs, which you did by not including a notification to me when you questioned my type. 

Cowering: 
- You never responded to multiple requests I've made for your to "solidify your reasoning" when you make comments on prior occasions, so you're obviously OK with shooting your mouth off. However, whenever someone mentions rules you seem to take a step back, as if being banned from PERC would jeopardize your security and routines. 

Delusional from reality: 
- Our little spat over the John Bebee model for shadows, where I'm still waiting for you to back up your conclusion that contained no reasoning and no evidence where I provided multiple sources for my statement. This also fits under cowering but I have a checklist I'm going through. 

- This little interaction here, where the only thing you've used from a source were if I counted correctly were 4 words from a "type profile" and a non-sequitur relying on attributing motives to "indicate Se-polr". 


Added your other points: 



bionic said:


> You've been around the ENTJ section for a year. I've seen the way you interact with everyone and I'm used to your writing style by now.
> 
> So why are you using Aestrivex's opinion of VI to deter the attention away after I asked you to post a pic of yourself? You're going off topic.


Now, this is in no way solidifying your reasoning, at least you made an attempt, a poor one but at least you made an attempt to back up what you say with the other post. Here you're not reasoning, you're not presenting evidence, you're just making an assertion that based on your past experience of reading my posts you have concluded that. I cannot take that seriously. 

Going off topic by quoting a post on why visual identification is bad is going off topic when someone asks to make a visual identification which is just as subjective as her original reasoning? That's interesting, it's a bit like saying "Why are you going off topic by posting someone's opinion on the danger of gun-shot woulds to the head after I asked you to please stand in front of my gun-barrel?" 

I asked you to make your reasoning clear, you have not. You drew a conclusion, which was not at all based on visual typing, but you have shown yourself unable to back that up through reasoning or evidence. Your recourse was to ask for a picture so you can "visually type me" despite not having used such when you made your assertion, thus you are either not certain in your original conclusion, or you wish to gain the edge by using a method which very few here are familiar with as a thumb on the scale.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

bionic said:


> It's not unreliable if 1. You understand VI & Socionics 2. You have a couple pics of full frontal face pictures 3. You use the photos you have against other reliable types to solidify your findings. 4. Also, Socionics has other factors like romance styles, interaction styles, and quadra values. It's like putting a puzzle together. If something doesn't add up, then you know that person probably doesn't fit the type (or vice versa depending on the situation).


To be honest, I think that giving the same relevance to all variables wouldn't be wise, as some of them can be far more accurate than others. I personally think that values and styles in general could give a better idea than seeing some pictures, as you should consider that there are genetic factors that don't influence personality at all, plus some people could make random expressions that give no clue about their personality. So I won't rely on such thing that resembles more of a medieval trial than real science.

This exemplifies my idea about thinking that VI isn't really useful (example that some classmate used while learning more about the scientific method, for me this trial is as reliable as VI) :







The point is that deducing the personality of someone is far hazier and unreliable than solving some basic hard science problem, specially when you begin to ponder which are the variables that could give more relevant information.


----------



## liminalthought

Mugino Shizuri said:


> To be honest, I think that giving the same relevance to all variables wouldn't be wise, as some of them can be far more accurate than others. I personally think that values and styles in general could give a better idea than seeing some pictures, _*as you should consider that there are genetic factors that don't influence personality at all, plus some people could make random expressions that give no clue about their personality*_.


As they explain, I also agree that this is where some of the haziness of VI comes in. The reasons behind _why_ such expressions and appearances are for a certain person *is* telling of personality, but raw physical traits _due to genetics_ cannot be ignored as a factor that has _no_ influence from IM elements. There is a boundary.


----------



## Scelerat

liminalthought said:


> As they explain, I also agree that this is where some of the haziness of VI comes in. The reasons behind _why_ such expressions and appearances are for a certain person *is* telling of personality, but raw physical traits _due to genetics_ cannot be ignored as a factor that has _no_ influence from IM elements. There is a boundary.


The first problem you run into is genetics. If we assume that there is no link between facial expressions/appearances and genetics, then you have a very large set of variations that makes it very difficult to get good data. If we assume that such links exist, you run into the problem of having to prove that such links exist as that would be a primary premise for your future research. Dario Nardi's "Neuroscience of personality" does have some interesting data in this regard as it "obscures" up the cause and effect. 

The second problem is related to Paul Ekman's research about universal facial expressions that have to be eliminated from your samples.

The third problem is cultural/social group effects that influence the frequency and displays of facial expressions and appearance. 

The fourth problem you run into is attempting to infer the why behind the expressions and appearances which is wrought with bias. The primary ones, confirmation bias, selection bias, anchor bias, expectation bias, observer expectancy effect, selective perception and that's by no means an exhaustive list.

The fifth problem is the subject itself, because human beings are generally poor at knowing the "why" of their own behavior and recent developments in research around free will (read Sam Harris "Free Will" for a quick 101) indicates that many of the choices and reactions we experience are not within our control and we struggle with accurately explaining why we did what we did, and most of the time simply rationalize it after it happens. 

The sixth problem is verifying your data, you would need to have some form of control system to ensure that the data is accurate when used by one or more independent parties.


----------



## Entropic

I was the one who asked, so why not respond to me? Anyway, I'll respond to the posts that I saw regarding this and offer my own opinion.



bionic said:


> Post a pic of yourself then. Let me VI you.


Why rely so heavily on VI to type someone? Sure, I am not one of those people entirely discrediting VI as I think VI is an interesting possibility to type someone, but is it the only possibility? No. I think VI is a method that can be used with other methods, but I would however not credit VI over the basics of Model A.


> You gave me enough evidence to push the possibility of 8 out. That comment above ^ was more passive-aggressive than direct. You have a habit of doing this, repeatedly. When I barked at you for ruining my thread that I made for Monkey, you walked away and just left... instead of apologizing or even making some sort of statement as to WHY you made your quips. That is enough to tell me you are not an 8. Certainly not an 8w7. You are not reactive, certainly for a supposed ENTJ 8w7. There is nothing 'grounding' about your posts. All 8s have this 'gravitas' about them and you lack it. That is the most telling thing. Also, when you make posts while you are in stress... you become delusional to reality. As if, you aren't connected. If someone is aggressive toward you; you freak out, make a passive-aggressive delusional remark, or cower away. This is more indicative of Se-polr to me. When you got your head on right; you usually just cower and don't care to follow through. You don't debate with people to 'weed them out' or to 'understand their boundaries'. You do it simply for intellectual reasons. There is nothing animalistic about you... and I'm sure you'll probably take this as me personally attacking you then solidifying my reasoning. <--- another difference between Alpha & Gamma values.


Not to throw stones in glasshouses but... how sure are you that you are yourself a gamma? This entire reasoning here is very typical of ethics in ego. Where is your attempt to logically reason based on impersonal systems and appeal to common facts that LIEs, being Te base, are so good at doing? You don't mention Model A once, instead you are describing his person, but you aren't actually attempting to link this to genuine theory. Your reasoning process hinges more on how you read him as a person than it does "I've noticed that this behavior here is more akin to what I associate to Fe HA in Model A because ZYX reasons". You don't do this. In fact, none of your posts do this. However, ethical ego types tend to focus on people's character when arguing and reasoning, since ethics naturally makes them more attuned to people's emotional states, the emotional environment and so on.

I'll even go as far as to claim you might be Fe ego and Fe base, and if that's true, then it's understandable you are mistaking this for logic because ethics base types often experience their own ethics as very logical as a reasoning process. All of what you mention here are very subjective readings such as 8 gravitas but the key point, that which discerns your post away from having logic in ego, is that you never attempt to describe or define these ideas. To logical types, especially base, this is all that rules their world. To categorize, classify and create systems. Before you start accusing other people of being mistypes I think it might do you good to first really consider whether you are properly typed yourself. 



bionic said:


> You've been around the ENTJ section for a year. I've seen the way you interact with everyone and I'm used to your writing style by now.


Again an argument not based on logic, but ethics. How does you knowing his typing style have any bearing on his type? It doesn't, besides the fact that you think his typing style says something about his personality so therefore you think that since you are used to the way he types, it means you've got plenty of time to observe how he's not an LIE. 

It's a weak nonsensical argument since you don't present any points that would be relevant here which isn't so strange, because doing that would require you to impersonally categorize him according to the system. For example, based on what I've seen of Scelerat's writing style, he not only does he seem to reason based on how I think LIEs reason, it's definitely the case that he's coming from the place of logic in ego, and the way he does so tends to usually be to appeal to common facts, ideals or systems. Furthermore, if I were to examine his reasoning process, I also find that his cognitive style nicely coincides with the vortical-synergetic style Gulenko describes and I saw a recent post of his in the cognitive subforum where he made this very evident when he described how he tries to figure out someone's type, very much fitting the idea of how VS types need to "try" out their solutions. LIE is the only type in gamma quadra in possession of this cognitive style. 



> So why are you using Aestrivex's opinion of VI to deter the attention away after I asked you to post a pic of yourself? You're going off topic.


More ethical reasoning, asking for his opinion on aestrivex's opinions rather than actually addressing the claim he was making here, which is to point out that VI isn't all that reliable as a typing method, especially not on its own. You only seem to be interested for him to provide evidence in the form of a picture and now you seem to attempt to shame him because he didn't. So much Fe reasoning. 



bionic said:


> It's not unreliable if 1. You understand VI & Socionics 2. You have a couple pics of full frontal face pictures 3. You use the photos you have against other reliable types to solidify your findings. 4. Also, Socionics has other factors like romance styles, interaction styles, and quadra values. It's like putting a puzzle together. If something doesn't add up, then you know that person probably doesn't fit the type (or vice versa depending on the situation).


It is unreliable because VI is even more difficult to utilize than more traditional typing methods. Also, as aestrivex has mentioned and is one of the points I'm inclined to agree with, is that VI is also unreliable when it comes to static pictures. To observe people how they behave and interact IRL is one thing, that is definitely a part of socionics, e.g. to study rationality-irrationality, but static pictures cannot offer this kind of data. 

And bringing up how socionics has romance styles, interaction styles and quadra values is entirely irrelevant to the argument you're making to utilize VI solely as the basis of typing. Though I can agree with your conclusion that if something doesn't add up in any of these ideas, then there is a chance one is a mistype, people don't always realize this because they might experience themselves to fit a certain description though they may really not.


----------



## Siggy

* WARNING TO ALL


Please refrain from , gossip, arguments and unsolicited typing of others

for those of you who wish to engage in socionics typing; there is a thread dedicated to those who want assistance ( whats my socionics type thread )*


----------



## Entropic

R.I.P. Gamma Hangout.


----------



## cyamitide

ephemereality said:


> R.I.P. Gamma Hangout.


lol


----------



## Figure

Well now that attempts to establish "social hierarchies" through alleged mistypes have been erased from the _Gamma _thread.....perhaps, Democracy


----------



## Scelerat

Figure said:


> Well now that attempts to establish "social hierarchies" through alleged mistypes have been erased from the _Gamma _thread.....perhaps, Democracy


One has to appreciate the unintentional comedy though.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Well, this got revived, so I don't need to use a ton of phoenix downs for that job lol still the comedy was pure lulz, even if it killed this thread, but yeah, it came back from the dead.


----------



## liminalthought

PURE democracy. Of the highest order.


----------



## Figure

liminalthought said:


> PURE democracy. Of the highest order.
> 
> View attachment 85331


Surely you could have made that scratch and sniff.


----------



## liminalthought

Oh @Kanerou. What could you be up to? This should become a pleasure.


----------



## Entropic

I guess we should now rename this thread into the Gamma Zombie Hangout. Also, zombies are known for their democracy. I mean, a brain is a brain regardless of which one it is, right?


----------



## cyamitide

Tainted Streetlight said:


> Why do Gammas seem to like gory things? I've got a good friend who's LIE who has a more notable affinity for it, and just happened to be wondering the question when I saw the above posts.


One of Stratievskaya's (sp?) translations mentioned that Gammas have an issue with feeling like their hands are tied. I think this is somehow related to their liking of gore because that's the ultimate breaking of all rules, to freely compete and do as much damage as you please. SLIs are another type where this trend exists, but for them it becomes like a fretish and has something to do with NeFi weirdness.


----------



## Kanerou

Tainted Streetlight said:


> Why do Gammas seem to like gory things? I've got a good friend who's LIE who has a more notable affinity for it, and just happened to be wondering the question when I saw the above posts.


*shrugs* Not all do.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

I have a gamma in my avatar aw yeah


----------



## Entropic

Tainted Streetlight said:


> Why do Gammas seem to like gory things? I've got a good friend who's LIE who has a more notable affinity for it, and just happened to be wondering the question when I saw the above posts.


My SEE friend isn't particularly fond of gore at all actually. I don't think being a gamma must mean you like gore. I happened to do that but I don't like gore for the sake of gore either.


----------



## Immemorial

Tainted Streetlight said:


> Why do Gammas seem to like gory things? I've got a good friend who's LIE who has a more notable affinity for it, and just happened to be wondering the question when I saw the above posts.


Edited.
---


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Tainted Streetlight said:


> Why do Gammas seem to like gory things? I've got a good friend who's LIE who has a more notable affinity for it, and just happened to be wondering the question when I saw the above posts.


I don't like gore, as I find it disgusting, specially when it's pointless. I only posted that video for a puntual reason, but things like Genocyber are a no-no for me.


----------



## liminalthought

It _transitioned_ from fighting dragons to people's guts spewing all over the place like silly putty. No big deal. ha







(but it is)


----------



## Entropic

I'm thus far the only gamma in this thread who likes gore. Yay for stereotypes. Do I get to wear the stereotype hat now?


----------



## Helios

liminalthought said:


> It _transitioned_ from fighting dragons to people's guts spewing all over the place like silly putty. No big deal. ha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (but it is)


After dissecting plenty of animals, watching several surgeries, and realizing that I'm going to have to do work with cadavers in medical school I don't really see the big deal. You're just cutting into things. Lol.


----------



## liminalthought

Ananael said:


> After dissecting plenty of animals, watching several surgeries, and realizing that I'm going to have to do work with cadavers in medical school I don't really see the big deal. You're just cutting into things. Lol.


Technically, by the formal definition of "gore", you are correct. You will encounter much "gore" in your professional training.

It's not like you're going to be blowing people up, are you? O.O just blowing up into things?
Lower the medical bill and make the incision quick with explosives, yes.


----------



## Helios

liminalthought said:


> Technically, by the formal definition of "gore", you are correct. You will encounter much "gore" in your professional training.
> 
> It's not like you're going to be blowing people up, are you? O.O just blowing up into things?
> Lower the medical bill and make the incision quick with explosives, yes.


I'd rather avoid getting malpractice suits, but I'll keep that suggestion in my back pocket when the time for it is right.


----------



## liminalthought

Ananael said:


> I'd rather avoid getting malpractice suits, but I'll keep that suggestion in my back pocket when the time for it is right.


My revolutionary idea gets popularized since it saves money and creates a bigger profit, perfect bait. Malpractice suits indirectly induced by me now, and profited off of by me when I spearhead them in court later. It's the perfect strategy. Mind force in, snowballs, money out.

@_Kanerou_, I am no moral arbiter.


----------



## Helios

liminalthought said:


> Malpractice suits induced by me now, and profited off of by me when I spearhead them in court later. It's the perfect strategy.


Well sir, I know how to argue a point well. By using this skill I can save millions of dollars and prevent you from gaining any. Also, revealing your plan to the enemy isn't ever a wise move. That's just giving me something to expect and use against you.


----------



## liminalthought

Ananael said:


> Well sir, I know how to argue a point well. By using this skill I can save millions of dollars and prevent you from gaining any. Also, revealing your plan to the enemy isn't ever a wise move. That's just giving me something to expect and use against you.


Realistically thinking, you'll forget all about this when the time to strike has come (given all the forces of daily life). Can you keep this in mind clearly for the ripening 6-10 years?


----------



## Helios

liminalthought said:


> Realistically thinking, you'll forget all about this when the time to strike has come (given all the forces of daily life). Can you keep this in mind clearly for the ripening 6-10 years?


Useless thoughts from the void are always emerging at the most random of times. I'm pretty sure it will return when something about malpractice and medical ethics comes about.


----------



## liminalthought

Ananael said:


> Useless thoughts from the void are always emerging at the most random of times. I'm pretty sure it will return when something about malpractice and medical ethics comes about.


The void gives and mixes both reality and illusion, you won't be able to tell. Muahahaha


----------



## Helios

liminalthought said:


> The void gives and mixes both reality and illusion, you won't be able to tell. Muahahaha


Whatever floats your megalomaniacal boat, mate. Karma is a bitch~


----------



## liminalthought

Ananael said:


> Whatever floats your megalomaniacal boat, mate. Karma is a bitch~


You should just forget all about this, free your soul.
(No really, I was kidding, my plan sucks)


----------



## Monkey King

I like gore & horror.


----------



## Monkey King

Double post


----------



## Kintsugi

Monkey King said:


> I like gore & horror.


Same here. I also used to enjoy scaring the shit out of people. When I was younger I used to get bored at house parties so I'd casually grab a knife from the kitchen and start randomly stalking people for fun. I never hurt anyone, obviously. I guess I got a kick out of feeling the kind of power that comes from being the reason someone is crouched in a corner, close to tears, begging you to "QUIT PLAYING FUCKING GAMES". 

Hmm. That makes me sound rather screwed up. :laughing:


----------



## Kanerou

Kintsugi said:


> Same here. I also used to enjoy scaring the shit out of people. When I was younger I used to get bored at house parties so I'd casually grab a knife from the kitchen and start randomly stalking people for fun. I never hurt anyone, obviously. I guess I got a kick out of feeling the kind of power that comes from being the reason someone is crouched in a corner, close to tears, begging you to "QUIT PLAYING FUCKING GAMES".
> 
> Hmm. That makes me sound rather screwed up. :laughing:


If you're putting them through that kind of terror, then you _are_ hurting them; make no mistake about that. Not all damage is physical. And yes, that is rather screwed up.


----------



## Kintsugi

Kanerou said:


> If you're putting them through that kind of terror, then you _are_ hurting them; make no mistake about that. Not all damage is physical. And yes, that is rather screwed up.


Ah well. We're all guilty of hurting other people sometimes - we are humans after all.


----------



## Kanerou

Kintsugi said:


> Ah well. We're all guilty of hurting other people sometimes - we are humans after all.


I missed the part where you said it's a past behavior and not a current one. That is reassuring. I understand that I don't have access to your inner workings and only see what you present. With that said, you seem to be treating this very casually and dismissively, and that's concerning. I understand what it's like to enjoy that kind of power over people; I really do. But hurting people for jollies is not a good thing, and you seem to be shirking all responsibility in that matter.


----------



## Kintsugi

Kanerou said:


> I missed the part where you said it's a past behavior and not a current one. That is reassuring. I understand that I don't have access to your inner workings and only see what you present. With that said, you seem to be treating this very casually and dismissively, and that's concerning. I understand what it's like to enjoy that kind of power over people; I really do. But hurting people for jollies is not a good thing, and you seem to be shirking all responsibility in that matter.


I understand your concern, but, seriously, there is no need to worry - I sure don't. :laughing:

On a serious note, never did I once state that I "hurt people for jollies." It was never my intention to _hurt _people; I was just a bored teenager getting high, messing around, generally trying to figure out where the fuck I fit in this big bad crazy world. I like playing with power and have always been a bit of an actress. I guess I was just a little bit more extreme in my youth. It doesn't bother me, and honestly, I don't really care enough to discuss this in detail with people who do get offended by it.*shrugs*

I'll just shut up now.

*slinks back to the shadows, knife in hand* :ninja:


----------



## Flatlander

cyamitide said:


> One of Stratievskaya's (sp?) translations mentioned that Gammas have an issue with feeling like their hands are tied. I think this is somehow related to their liking of gore because that's the ultimate breaking of all rules, to freely compete and do as much damage as you please. SLIs are another type where this trend exists, but for them it becomes like a fretish and has something to do with NeFi weirdness.


Fits the idea of why I like gore. I like the idea of inflicting it, of being involved in the guts of the world. I don't know why I don't _do_ it.


----------



## Kintsugi

Flatlander said:


> Fits the idea of why I like gore. I like the idea of inflicting it, of being involved in the guts of the world. I don't know why I don't _do_ it.


Interesting - I completely relate to this. Can someone explain to me how this may/may not be related to Socionics/Gamma quadra/etc?


----------



## Flatlander

Kintsugi said:


> Interesting - I completely relate to this. Can someone explain to me how this may/may not be related to Socionics/Gamma quadra/etc?


From Wikisocion, I think the relevant elements of Gamma Quadra are these:



 Gamma types take a hard-line approach regarding ethical principles and the punishment, even revenge, on those who break them. 
 Gamma types place high value on personal loyalty, once they feel a close relationship has been established. 
 Gamma types like to discuss personal relationships in a realistic manner and are skeptical that "jerks" can ever become "nice people", for instance. 

Add to that the Ni/Te stuff about long-distance vision, and it suggests that gamma types might not deal in in-the-moment competition unless they see a significant point in it.

So gamma types are realistic in ethical ways and long-ranged in factual view - on either level, it suggests the 'hands are tied' idea that Cyamitide posted about. But given the raw nature of Se perception and the personal nature of Fi ethical standards, as well as Ni dynamic/meaningful and Te factual inclination, gore is about as _real life_ as it gets here, being, housing and standing for life force - gore is primal. So you can get a type that really wants to participate in the world on this primal level, since primality is the base of what humans are.

I always had this drive since childhood, but I ended up inverting it into my mind like a 5, so instead I found power in my concepts and thoughts, feeling helpless in the world. I'm still attracted to gore and the idea of it, though; really can't help it.


----------



## Kintsugi

Flatlander said:


> I always had this drive since childhood, but I ended up inverting it into my mind like a 5, so instead I found power in my concepts and thoughts, feeling helpless in the world. I'm still attracted to gore and the idea of it, though; really can't help it.


This sounds very similar to things my SO has told me, (INTJ, 4w5 - I think).

It's okay, you can find ways to experience that level of intensity for real without inflicting real damage or fucking up. Trust me.


----------



## Monkey King

Kintsugi said:


> Same here. I also used to enjoy scaring the shit out of people. When I was younger I used to get bored at house parties so I'd casually grab a knife from the kitchen and start randomly stalking people for fun. I never hurt anyone, obviously. I guess I got a kick out of feeling the kind of power that comes from being the reason someone is crouched in a corner, close to tears, begging you to "QUIT PLAYING FUCKING GAMES".
> 
> Hmm. That makes me sound rather screwed up. :laughing:


LOL That is funny. I mean I don't think I'd go around freaking people out but will if someone had done it to me first. But I tend to over do it when I take my turn. 

----

I'm not really sure why I like it. Perhaps I like seeing how I'd react to that type of stimulus. Will I react like a normal person? Will I be mad, will I become scared, will I feel nothing, or will I go take revenge? What's my threshold for gore,violence etc..

Plus, when I look at it gore is pretty basic. Normal is complex. I find that interesting.


----------



## Entropic

I find it an interesting pattern that all NTs think Kintsugi's behavior is not of unethical nature, but is more seen as something humorous or interesting.


----------



## Monkey King

ephemereality said:


> I find it an interesting pattern that all NTs think Kintsugi's behavior is not of unethical nature, but is more seen as something humorous or interesting.


I think you might be forcing dots here. Kintsugi put it in context, she was bored in a house party and didn't hurt anyone. I was thinking at that point, that this was a joke and that she probably was familiar with a few people in the house (Try doing this in a house filled with strangers. I don't think it'll be that fun/interesting/comical) Kanerou had a point and it was not wrong. It was unethical in nature (hello, knife) but permissible because of context; but this does not change the nature of the action itself. No need to start dumping things into groups.

And I'm really picky with sample size so 3NTs really isn't all NTs. Had I not understood the situation as a joke, I would have pointed out how fucked in the head person was and should probably take some meds. (No offense kintsu)


----------



## Entropic

Monkey King said:


> I think you might be forcing dots here. Kintsugi put it in context, she was bored in a house party and didn't hurt anyone. I was thinking at that point, that this was a joke and that she probably was familiar with a few people in the house (Try doing this in a house filled with strangers. I don't think it'll be that fun/interesting/comical) Kanerou had a point and it was not wrong. It was unethical in nature (hello, knife) but permissible because of context; but this does not change the nature of the action itself. No need to start dumping things into groups.
> 
> And I'm really picky with sample size so 3NTs really isn't all NTs. Had I not understood the situation as a joke, I would have pointed out how fucked in the head person was and should probably take some meds. (No offense kintsu)


Yes, that is how I read it too, but I am saying this because an Fi friend of mine did not see it this way at all. She thought it was extremely unethical to scare a person like this, joke or not, because the scare is seriously hurting someone else. And yes, I know it is a small sample size, but it was more that none have thus reacted in a negative way from an ethical point of view which is consistent with weaker Fi.


----------



## Helios

Kintsugi said:


> Same here. I also used to enjoy scaring the shit out of people. When I was younger I used to get bored at house parties so I'd casually grab a knife from the kitchen and start randomly stalking people for fun. I never hurt anyone, obviously. I guess I got a kick out of feeling the kind of power that comes from being the reason someone is crouched in a corner, close to tears, begging you to "QUIT PLAYING FUCKING GAMES".
> 
> Hmm. That makes me sound rather screwed up. :laughing:


Huh, this reminds me of every time my sister pulled out a very sharp knife from the kitchen. One time she chased my friend and I around the apartment when she was angry or whatever, and another time we got into a huge argument over some bullshit and she was probably going to kill herself with it or something. While the former was quite scary (I was like 11, lol), the latter was just melodramatic.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Ananael said:


> Huh, this reminds me of every time my sister pulled out a very sharp knife from the kitchen. One time she chased my friend and I around the apartment when she was angry or whatever, and another time we got into a huge argument over some bullshit and she was probably going to kill herself with it or something. While the former was quite scary (I was like 11, lol), the latter was just melodramatic.


Your parents must be wonderful.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

ephemereality said:


> I find it an interesting pattern that all NTs think Kintsugi's behavior is not of unethical nature, but is more seen as something humorous or interesting.


Humorous? No. Interesting? Only somewhat due to the lack of novelty. 

I don't like it because it shows the mental unhealthiness of Kintsugi.


----------



## Kintsugi

Ananael said:


> Huh, this reminds me of every time my sister pulled out a very sharp knife from the kitchen. One time she chased my friend and I around the apartment when she was angry or whatever, and another time we got into a huge argument over some bullshit and she was probably going to kill herself with it or something. While the former was quite scary (I was like 11, lol), the latter was just melodramatic.


I'm not a fan of melodrama, I just like stalking people.


----------



## Helios

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Your parents must be wonderful.


My parents are.. let me get back to you on that. However, they weren't there during either instance haha.



ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Humorous? No. Interesting? Only somewhat due to the lack of novelty.
> 
> I don't like it because it shows the mental unhealthiness of Kintsugi.


Lol I know people get power kicks, which is nothing new. But the first thought that came to mind is what Kintsugi woiuld do if she came across someone who would either perceive the action as a serious threat and try to get back at her for it, or if the person somehow turned the knife on her instead.



Kintsugi said:


> I'm not a fan of melodrama, I just like stalking people.


Lol but why?


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Ananael said:


> However, they weren't there during either instance haha.


Not what I meant


----------



## Helios

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Not what I meant


Sarcasm detected


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Ananael said:


> Sarcasm detected


Your internet sarcasm detector is broken if it's directed at the quote in your post. If directed at my initial post in this conversation, please tell me where you got yours.


----------



## Helios

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Your internet sarcasm detector is broken if it's directed at the quote in your post. If directed at my initial post in this conversation, please tell me where you got yours.


It's directed at the initial post, haha. 
My internet sarcasm detector is innate, so I couldn't possibly tell you how to get one. :wink:


----------



## FlightsOfFancy

Hi, you all will deal with my presence. Dealing? Good


----------



## Kintsugi

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> I don't like it because it shows the mental unhealthiness of Kintsugi.


LOL, this made me laugh. 



Ananael said:


> Lol I know people get power kicks, which is nothing new. But the first thought that came to mind is what Kintsugi woiuld do if she came across someone who would either perceive the action as a serious threat and try to get back at her for it, or if the person somehow turned the knife on her instead.


If I thought in any way that the person might have perceived the action as a serious threat I wouldn't have done it. As it was mentioned above, a) I was young when I did this (in my teens), and, b) I was at a party with FRIENDS - who knew me very well and were also well aware of what I was capable of. 

As for the second part, yes, I have had someone turn a knife on me before, in both a playful and aggressive manor.



> Lol but why?


Why not. :wink:


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Kintsugi said:


> LOL, this made me laugh.


It's funny, because disliking and deflection. 


Ananael said:


> It's directed at the initial post, haha.
> My internet sarcasm detector is innate, so I couldn't possibly tell you how to get one. :wink:


If I recall correctly, you're an aspiring neurosurgeon, and I'm currently majoring in neuroscience, so maybe we could figure that out someday. =P


----------



## Helios

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> If I recall correctly, you're an aspiring neurosurgeon, and I'm currently majoring in neuroscience, so maybe we could figure that out someday. =P


I'm toying with the prospect of a concentration in neuroscience since that major isn't offered here. And is it me or are you propositioning me for future collaboration?


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Ananael said:


> I'm toying with the prospect of a concentration in neuroscience since that major isn't offered here. And is it me or are you propositioning me for future collaboration?


Thank God you turned proposition into a verb, instead of saying proposing. Then I'd have to get down on one knee and ask if you'd assist me in transplanting the part of your brain that allows you to detect sarcasm over the internet to mine. That would be just plain awkward.


----------



## Helios

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Thank God you turned proposition into a verb, instead of saying proposing. Then I'd have to get down on one knee and ask if you'd assist me in transplanting the part of your brain that allows you to detect sarcasm over the internet to mine. That would be just plain awkward.


What makes you think I wouldn't say yes to that though?


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Ananael said:


> What makes you think I wouldn't say yes to that though?


Because cutting shit open, and brains and science and stuff...


----------



## Helios

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Because cutting shit open, and brains and science and stuff...


But cutting shit open, brains, and science are the way into my heart, mate. Use that to your advantage.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Ananael said:


> But cutting shit open, brains, and science are the way into my heart, mate. Use that to your advantage.


You're a black American using the slang word "mate."


----------



## sanari

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> You're a black American using the slang word "mate."


Is that weird or wrong? Does she have to fit a prescribed role?


----------



## Helios

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> You're a black American using the slang word "mate."


----------



## Helios

Fuck that~
Not about that life.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Ananael said:


> Fuck that~
> Not about that life.


Fine.
You can be Calpurnia from _To Kill a Mockingbird_​


----------



## Helios

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Fine.
> You can be Calpurnia from _To Kill a Mockingbird_​


I'd rather be the next world dictator. Thank you very much.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Ananael said:


> I'd rather be the next world dictator. Thank you very much.


It would seem a certain subhuman brother of yours has beat you to that.










Down with the Zionist movement!


----------



## Helios

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> It would seem a certain subhuman brother of yours has beat you to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Down with the Zionist movement!


Obama is as good as a figurehead, and everyone knows this. 
How is the Zionist movement even relevant haha?


----------



## Helios

Haha, fuck society though. Let go of your superiority complex mate, because we all know that deep down you have to build up a false sense of importance just to cope with the fact that you are no more significant than a mere rock or some other form of matter from a chemical standpoint.


----------



## Entropic

I think some people mistook their quadra thread.


----------



## Elyasis

Kanerou said:


> @_Elyasis_ What site?


Deviantart. Search socionics. Or the informal names, better results if you use the russian spelling of the names, like Balzac... Napoleon, Dreiser, and Jack London.


----------



## Entropic

Elyasis said:


> I think it goes from left to right: LIE, ESI, SEE, ILI. You should see most of the art about the ILI on the art site I frequent. All emo looking and serious faced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a happier looking one. Maybe.


No way ILI is going to look openly sour. Stonefaced and emo maybe, I can buy that, but not openly sour. Only Fi doms do that and I swear it's a recurring trait I've seen in every Fi dom I've engaged. They can do it online too, though obviously through text. 

Compare Trent to the characters below whose actors are likely the same type they are acting. Especially Shae, it's so striking lol. I was googling for images and there's not one image of her where she doesn't ooze that sourness.


----------



## Kanerou

Elyasis said:


> I think it goes from left to right: LIE, ESI, SEE, ILI.


Judging from other pics, the guy with the sword is the ESI - which is fitting, IMO.



ephemereality said:


> *No way* ILI is going to look openly sour. Stonefaced and emo maybe, I can buy that, but not openly sour. *Only* Fi doms do that and I swear it's a recurring trait I've seen in every Fi dom I've engaged. They can do it online too, though obviously through text.


These are very closed/absolutist statements, and they are therefore quite unlikely to be true.


----------



## Entropic

Kanerou said:


> Judging from other pics, the guy with the sword is the ESI - which is fitting, IMO.


Why so and not LIE? At least Elyasis and I agree on something besides SEE.


> These are very closed/absolutist statements, and they are therefore quite unlikely to be true.


And I substantiated my argument in the above post with some visuals since that is the only thing we can go by here anyway.

I think there is a difference between how ILI and ESI look sour or whatever.


----------



## LibertyPrime

ephemereality said:


> lol, no surprise. I think they are in this order:
> 
> Left guy with sword thing: LIE, ILI sitting below, SEE in the throne wearing the crown and ESI to the right looking sour.


:O that was exactly my assessment too. As soon as i saw the one on the right with the arms crossed I knew he was ESI. >.> that is just so well made pic I swear! >) reminded me of @Kanerou.

I honestly thought the LIE would be a bit more zany, but the one with the crown on the throne is a clear SEE, the guy crouching next to him has to be ILI so I ended up with the same assessment. Normally wouldn't have been able to see the LIE in the bunch thou.

[HR][/HR]

I guess its just the impression then. >.> I have been called childish and overly non serious before when in a non work environment with friends around...so yeah. But yeah imo the worst situations always call for a lighthearted joke to cut off that serious stressful edge in the air.

 must find these illustrations of the types thou!


----------



## Dragheart Luard

FreeBeer said:


> I have a question for GAMMA types. I have observed this in ILIs and ESI's especially, LIEs not so much, they are abit lighter imo, but SEEs seem afflicted with this as welll....I mean this seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my interactions with gamma types there has always been this* lack of lightheartedness*.


Because I'm not too fond of the jokes that other people like, I can laugh about random stuff sometimes, but it becomes too uninteresting for me. I prefer trolling and sarcasm to lighthearted jokes, plus most people that I've know thought that I was some sort of boring no-nonsense person. Still I get rather exasperated when my lab partner begins to do some stupid jokes while I want to do a good work for not getting poorly measured data, which later could screw up a lab report, as I have an idea of the results that we could get there.

For me there are times when you shouldn't be goofy, but in more relaxed circumstances I'm less serious.


----------



## Entropic

FreeBeer said:


> :O that was exactly my assessment too. As soon as i saw the one on the right with the arms crossed I knew he was ESI. >.> that is just so well made pic I swear!
> 
> I honestly thought the LIE would be a bit more zany, but the one with the crown on the throne is a clear SEE, the guy crouching next to him has to be ILI so I ended up with the same assessment. Normally wouldn't have been able to see the LIE in the bunch thou.
> 
> [HR][/HR]
> 
> I guess its just the impression then. >.> I have been called childish and overly non serious before when in a non work environment with friends around...so yeah. But yeah imo the worst situations always call for a lighthearted joke to cut off that serious stressful edge in the air.


I too thought the LIE would appear a bit more "upbeat" a least, kind of like how I imagine Robert Downey Jr. in most of his roles. And yes, the guy with the crown must be the SEE. Checking the ILI-SEE pictures on DA it's a recurring theme to place the SEE in the royal colorful outfit and the ILI in some gloomy black one lol. 

Also, if one is going to go by VI/rationality-irrationality, the guy crouching has a less rigid body language more suggestive of an irrational lead. The guy to the left just appears too rigid but not as much as to the right, which I think could infer slightly to static vs dynamic, but I bet people will say I am reading too much into this now but whatever.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Blue Flare said:


> Because I'm not too fond of the jokes that other people like, I can laugh about random stuff sometimes, but it becomes too uninteresting for me. I prefer trolling and sarcasm to lighthearted jokes, plus most people that I've know thought that I was some sort of boring no-nonsense person. Still I get rather exasperated when my lab partner begins to do some stupid jokes while I want to do a good work for not getting poorly measured data, which later could screw up a lab report, as I have an idea of the results that we could get there.
> 
> For me there are times when you shouldn't be goofy, but in more relaxed circumstances I'm less serious.


o.o interesting, its something worth keeping in mind. It would bother you if someone went goofy in situations where one would need seriousness.

:sad: eh I often don't get sarcasm...especially over the internet.


----------



## Helios

FreeBeer said:


> I have a question for GAMMA types. I have observed this in ILIs and ESI's especially, LIEs not so much, they are abit lighter imo, but SEEs seem afflicted with this as welll....I mean this seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my interactions with gamma types there has always been this* lack of lightheartedness*.


My roommate finds it hard to gauge when I'm joking and takes everything I say really seriously and literally, and someone else has described me as obnoxiously serious. The other day I made a joke in relation to something someone else said, and she freaked out because she thought I didn't know what the other girl meant because I'm not a lesbian. The mechanics of oral sex on a female isn't that hard to picture since tumblr leaves nothing to the imagination, and it's not something that only lesbians do. But whatever. 

As for jokes, I like sarcasm and innuendo a lot if you can't tell, as well as playing along with something as if the person weren't joking. But sometimes it throws people off or offends them. :crazy:

*is not gamma*


----------



## Dragheart Luard

FreeBeer said:


> o.o interesting, its something worth keeping in mind. It would bother you if someone went goofy in situations where one would need seriousness.
> 
> :sad: eh I often don't get sarcasm...especially over the internet.


Exactly, and that already happened when my lab partner could had messed up a whole experiment. She began to laugh when she could had damaged a thermostat with a clorhidric acid solution, and even if the flask didn't open, I was annoyed by her lack of seriousness, and her reply was along the lines that she wanted to laugh for cutting down the tense atmosphere, but that reaction pissed me off, so I only told to her that she shouldn't do such things during the experiment.

About sarcasm, over the internet may be more difficult, but I think that I still can detect it.


----------



## Entropic

FreeBeer said:


> :sad: eh I often don't get sarcasm...especially over the internet.


On a sidenote, I don't think everyone does even us gammas though we have a propensity to use that as a form of humor. It doesn't help over the internet when one cannot observe the delivery of the comment, though I find that gammas tend to often deliver in a sense that doesn't make it readily apparent whether it is sarcastic or serious, which is kind of a bit of the point of the humor behind it. It's pretty clear others don't get it anyway.


----------



## Flatlander

FreeBeer said:


> I have a question for GAMMA types. I have observed this in ILIs and ESI's especially, LIEs not so much, they are abit lighter imo, but SEEs seem afflicted with this as welll....I mean this seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my interactions with gamma types there has always been this* lack of lightheartedness*.


In a good mood I will kinda toy with people, make snipes and so forth, but lightheartedness for its own sake just isn't my thing. I have to be happy for some inward reason that is only personally related. I also don't deal much in common context for humor; my jokes end up idiosyncratic, irl especially it seems like they're strange to most.

Seriousness, by contrast, comes naturally. I am pretty much purpose-driven and don't put my mind to things lightly.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Flatlander said:


> In a good mood I will kinda toy with people, make snipes and so forth, but lightheartedness for its own sake just isn't my thing. I have to be happy for some inward reason that is only personally related. I also don't deal much in common context for humor; my jokes end up idiosyncratic, irl especially it seems like they're strange to most.
> 
> Seriousness, by contrast, comes naturally. I am pretty much purpose-driven and don't put my mind to things lightly.


This is important to know and understand for ppl who are merry, because the lack of visible clues as to what is going on with the other person will trigger assumptions like the need to change the "mood" by lets say sudden jokes related to the situation, teasing, being goofy and trying to generally lighten the mood.

The lack of any interpersonal clues as to what the other person's internal state is, can be rather frustrating to deal with, especially if the intention of "lightening the mood" backfires, which likely will happen as observed in the previous post.

Its good to know this about gammas, so thx guys.


----------



## Entropic

Also I note that merry types don't understand why serious types respond seriously to something they did for the sake of lightning up the mood. A good recent example is that someone tried to joke with me on the forum. I understood that it was a joke, but given the previous context it also had serious logical consequences so I responded somewhat snarky and explained my point of view in terms of logic that was completely misunderstood as the person in question thought I didn't get it. I did, but I didn't care to play the emotional game as I have no interest in that. That later de-evolved into the person making an analogy I found quite funny, in that he compares it to me thinking I should drive on the wrong side of the road because my job and house is situated on that side. Of course the analogy doesn't hold since I wouldn't do that IRL, but doing that when it comes to Fe? Yes. I evidently just did.


----------



## Kanerou

ephemereality said:


> Why so and not LIE? At least Elyasis and I agree on something besides SEE.


This one is titled "Drei", probably as in "Dreiser", one of the names for the ESI type.

http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/134/e/5/drei_by_zitaar-d4zn9e0.jpg




> And I substantiated my argument in the above post with some visuals since that is the only thing we can go by here anyway.


A few pictures does not a strong argument make, particularly when you're using words/phrases like "no way" and "only".



> I think there is a difference between how ILI and ESI look sour or whatever.


*shrugs* Maybe.


----------



## Entropic

Kanerou said:


> This one is titled "Drei", probably as in "Dreiser", one of the names for the ESI type.


I tried to see if something said in the comments if it is, but even if it is, I'm not sure I agree with the visual presentation personally, anyway. 




> A few pictures does not a strong argument make, particularly when you're using words/phrases like "no way" and "only".


But they were meant to substantiate my observations. 

Also, arguing against my choice of words doesn't necessarily render the point I was making untrue
Sure, it sounded absolutist but I honestly don't agree with that an ILI would make such a face so publicly.


----------



## Kanerou

ephemereality said:


> But they were meant to substantiate my observations.


Your observations that ILIs _never_ do something, and you _only_ ever see it on Fi base types? You'll need more than a few pics to back up those kinds of sweeping claims.



> Also, arguing against my choice of words doesn't necessarily render the point I was making untrue
> 
> Sure, it sounded absolutist but I honestly don't agree with that an ILI would make such a face so publicly.


Your claim is most likely untrue because of the words you used. There is a difference between "In my experience, X does not happen" or "I do not think X happens" and "X never happens". Mind you, I disagree on your point regardless of the language you are using, but you should still keep said language in mind.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Kanerou said:


> This one is titled "Drei", probably as in "Dreiser", one of the names for the ESI type.
> 
> http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/134/e/5/drei_by_zitaar-d4zn9e0.jpg


Digging up a bit there, I also saw that the guy that was sitting on the floor was named "Jack", so for such info I could deduce that the grumpy long haired guy is the ILI of the group and the one with the crown is the SEE lol


----------



## Kanerou

*SNORT*

Stupid sexy Jack. (NSFW)

Jack by G-Duke on deviantART


----------



## Entropic

Though the other types don't follow such naming patterns from what I could tell browsing through the gallery, so I don't know how reliable that is. Though of course, they don't have to be any particular type to begin with.


----------



## Elyasis

Hnnngh, that Jack. I'm still in love with that SEE with the crown though. Sorry Jack. I figured out why the ESI and ILI are frowning and the LIE and SEE are smiling (grinning evilly more like), it's negativist vs positivist, or constructivist vs emotivist. Boom, you may now stop wondering. And when I initially typed them I was really unsure on all but the SEE and ILI.


----------



## Kintsugi

FreeBeer said:


> .
> In my interactions with gamma types there has always been this* lack of lightheartedness*.


I can understand how Gamma types come across as 'serious' and lacking lightheartedness to other Quadras (particularly Alpha, IMO). It's interesting, I myself feel a similar way about some Delta types. Not all of them, it really does depend on the individual. In my own experience I find it harder connecting with rational Deltas as opposed to irrationals, who seem more easy-going and laid back to me. The same can be said for rationals in my own Quadra - in particular, ESI, who can frustrate the fuck out of me sometimes. xD

From my own experience:I think I have been openly accused as being too serious by mainly Alpha types, they just don't dig that Gamma darkness/intensity. Beta types tend to deal with it better, they love a bit of darkness but quickly grow bored when I show no interest whatsoever in taking part in any public melodrama. Delta types don't seem too bothered by it, they just get frustrated by my fierce independence and unwillingness to be part of their 'clique.' I think maybe I come across as 'cold' as opposed to 'serious' to them.


----------



## Entropic

Elyasis said:


> Hnnngh, that Jack. I'm still in love with that SEE with the crown though. Sorry Jack. I figured out why the ESI and ILI are frowning and the LIE and SEE are smiling (grinning evilly more like), it's negativist vs positivist, or constructivist vs emotivist. Boom, you may now stop wondering. And when I initially typed them I was really unsure on all but the SEE and ILI.


I see, though I still think that's a pretty bad way of visualizing them in my opinion, since positivist-negativist also doesn't necessarily correlate to optimism/positivity-pessimism/negativity.


----------



## LibertyPrime

gamma quadra in a video trailer ESI specific (*WARNING MATURE CONTENT*):


----------



## Figure

Kintsugi said:


> I can understand how Gamma types come across as 'serious' and lacking lightheartedness to other Quadras (particularly Alpha, IMO). It's interesting, I myself feel a similar way about some Delta types. Not all of them, it really does depend on the individual. In my own experience I find it harder connecting with rational Deltas as opposed to irrationals, who seem more easy-going and laid back to me. The same can be said for rationals in my own Quadra - in particular, ESI, who can frustrate the fuck out of me sometimes. xD


That's interesting. Have you ever spent time with them as a quadra and noticed that they all actually do share the same lack of "light-heartedness?" I tend to find all of the Delta types (even the irrationals) too conservative in what they find to be entertaining. Their idea of a good weekend is going on a nature hike as a small group while talking about personal topics and collaborating to make some sort of new thing for dinner afterwards. I like the practicality of their preferences as a quadra, but it lacks the sharpness you get with Gammas. 

They don't seem to appreciate mutually recognized or gestured irony/cynicism as part of the connection you have with someone else. You can't smirk at something and know they understand, or have their own opinion on it to be shared later - and you can't really dart someone or something else and know it will even be weighed.


----------



## Entropic

There is a certain "darkness" or how to put it to gamma quadra that's not really found in the other quadras, I agree. There is a lot of reading between the lines when it comes to humor that might not be appreciated by everyone. I find the difference is the greatest between alpha and gamma humor. Alpha humor is so lightweight and silly. This guy Judson Joist who has written a couple of posts in this subforum is a good example of it. I don't get that kind of random humor at all. It seems like it has no point which it likely doesn't, which makes it even more difficult for me to appreciate it. There is always a point to gamma humor in some sense, in that the snark and sarcasm while ironic tends to always contain some truth to it. I don't find this to be the case with say, alpha humor.


----------



## Kintsugi

Figure said:


> That's interesting. Have you ever spent time with them as a quadra and noticed that they all actually do share the same lack of "light-heartedness?" I tend to find all of the Delta types (even the irrationals) too conservative in what they find to be entertaining. Their idea of a good weekend is going on a nature hike as a small group while talking about personal topics and collaborating to make some sort of new thing for dinner afterwards. I like the practicality of their preferences as a quadra, but it lacks the sharpness you get with Gammas.


Never spent time with a full-house of Delta all together. My Father is an LSE and sister is a EII. They are both VERY serious; which is even further emphasized by the contrast between them and my ESE mother and brother, who are both sickeningly bubbly and cheerful. The Delta rational members of my family have a sort of morally self-righteous "seriousness", which can can really piss on your fireworks when you just want to relax and let your hair down a little; I guess I just find their conservatism a little boring? Having said that, like you, I also appreciate and respect their practicality; when it comes down to hard-work - we can make a great team. They are generally people I can rely on.

Delta irrationals are similar, but generally a little more laid back. I really enjoy spending time with certain SLIs; I work with one who has a surprisingly quirky and rather dark sense of humor that rather appeals to me. However, sometimes when we chat I find myself 'zoning-out' as he does have a tendency to go into minute detail as he recounts certain experiences and memories. I have a feeling that I might come across as a little too 'crazy' and 'wild' for him at times as well. It's the sort of relationship that I think could lead to boredom and slight frustration is we ever spent too long a period in each others company. Superficially though, its awesome. ^_^

Initially, IEEs always seem very goofy and childlike to me. The "seriousness" doesn't really become apparent until after I have tried to engage with them on a deeper, more serious level. Actually, recently at a work party I was talking to an IEE about sex and sexuality. I am rather open about this stuff and have no problem discussing my views in public; I was rather surprised to find that she became quite uncomfortable, and at one point she even took my glass (that was full of wine) away from me, suggesting that I had "had too much" and that I might regret what I was saying the next day, lol. I felt like every single one of my actions and opinions were being psychoanalyzed and questioned - when all I wanted to was get merry and have interesting conversations. 

So, yeah. Basically, my personal experiences are similar to what you have described above. 



> They don't seem to appreciate mutually recognized or gestured irony/cynicism as part of the connection you have with someone else. You can't smirk at something and know they understand, or have their own opinion on it to be shared later - and you can't really dart someone or something else and know it will even be weighed.


Agreed.


----------



## Entropic

Also, I want to add now when I think about it, is the whole "smirk" thing that occurs among gammas is something my EII friend doesn't quite get either. We do share a sense of humor to a large degree in that we both appreciate some sarcasm, but I think a certain type of sarcasm is just innate to Fi. Not quite sure how I'd differentiate it between gamma, delta and beta. Beta sarcasm seems different to me, like what they think sarcasm is is different. With beta, it's like you can both smirk but when you then mention it to the other they just go "huh" because they didn't think of that at all. Interpreted the situation very differently. I find it a little frustrating in a different sense.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

About humour, I've developed some tolerance to lighthearted stuff, but I only tolerate it when I'm on a good mood, otherwise I will find it too random or plainly boring. Now, even if I don't know the types of my relatives, I think that many of them tend to tell funny stuff that has some degree of irony, but not like dark humour, more like purely sarcastic stuff. I notice that specially with jokes about politics or some other topics that can be used for doing a joke.


----------



## zinnia

@Kintsugi: My response to that IEE would have been something along the lines of "you're not my mother." That just seems ridiculous... and a little odd, unless she's a very close friend of yours.


----------



## Figure

Kintsugi said:


> Never spent time with a full-house of Delta all together. My Father is an LSE and sister is a EII. They are both VERY serious; which is even further emphasized by the contrast between them and my ESE mother and brother, who are both sickeningly bubbly and cheerful. The Delta rational members of my family have a sort of morally self-righteous "seriousness", which can can really piss on your fireworks when you just want to relax and let your hair down a little; I guess I just find their conservatism a little boring? Having said that, like you, I also appreciate and respect their practicality; when it comes down to hard-work - we can make a great team. They are generally people I can rely on.


Yeah, this was just two of them, an LSE and an IEE. I'm still a bit torn as to whether the rational Deltas' "rationality" magnifies the seriousness of the quadra as a whole, especially with IEE. However, it makes sense from your vantage since SEE supervise IEE on the basis of Se. I've always thought that one took the path of the SEE seeing the IEE as ineffectual and having no willpower - would you say that you feel as though you're supervising them by getting them to loosen up? 

When I am around LSE supervisees, I tend to think they are unable to identify what knowledge will be fundamental and what will not be. They put too much effort into memorizing or factualizing things that aren't meant to be understood that way to begin with. And interestingly, yes, actually in a way, that they take that process _too seriously_. 



> Delta irrationals are similar, but generally a little more laid back. I really enjoy spending time with certain SLIs; I work with one who has a surprisingly quirky and rather dark sense of humor that rather appeals to me. However, sometimes when we chat I find myself 'zoning-out' as he does have a tendency to go into minute detail as he recounts certain experiences and memories. I have a feeling that I might come across as a little too 'crazy' and 'wild' for him at times as well. It's the sort of relationship that I think could lead to boredom and slight frustration is we ever spent too long a period in each others company. Superficially though, its awesome. ^_^


Hm. That's interesting. My dad is an SLI and his sister is an SEE, and the criticism is typically that she is too frenetic, too "zany," too scattered and disorganized - and, that she pays little attention to the advice he gives her about finances, college planning, directions, etc, will call him randomly for 5 minutes to talk, then suddenly have to go. All of this to me seems rather pointless to complain about. If you don't want to listen to it, don't. Let her go on, and respond if it's something important, she won't know that you didn't listen to the random parts anyway - the irony of having played the game of letting that happen is hilariously satisfying in itself XD.

It's interesting because some sources say Se needs Ni to dampen its over-energy so it isn't focusing on ridiculous things that won't profit. Si can't do that - it tries to redirect it into seeing something else S-oriented (finance, college, etc) as more important than that energy.


----------



## Kintsugi

zinnia said:


> @_Kintsugi_: My response to that IEE would have been something along the lines of "you're not my mother." That just seems ridiculous... and a little odd, unless she's a very close friend of yours.


I just laughed, pulled the glass back into my hand, and took a massive swig. 

Doesn't bother me, I'm used to it. I seem to constantly unintentionally shock and offend people wherever I go.


----------



## zinnia

Kintsugi said:


> I just laughed, pulled the glass back into my hand, and took a massive swig.
> 
> Doesn't bother me, I'm used to it. I seem to constantly unintentionally shock and offend people wherever I go.


A much better response, indeed. XD

That's a shame though - I find unless someone is going strangely overboard with jokes about murdering and torturing people, I don't usually get "shocked" (offended, eh, maybe... ha)


----------



## Kintsugi

Figure said:


> Yeah, this was just two of them, an LSE and an IEE. I'm still a bit torn as to whether the rational Deltas' "rationality" magnifies the seriousness of the quadra as a whole, especially with IEE. However, it makes sense from your vantage since SEE supervise IEE on the basis of Se. I've always thought that one took the path of the SEE seeing the IEE as ineffectual and having no willpower - would you say that you feel as though you're supervising them by getting them to loosen up?
> 
> When I am around LSE supervisees, I tend to think they are unable to identify what knowledge will be fundamental and what will not be. They put too much effort into memorizing or factualizing things that aren't meant to be understood that way to begin with. And interestingly, yes, actually in a way, that they take that process _too seriously_.


I assume, when you say IEE, you mean EII. XD

I do often seen EIIs as lacking in the willpower department. I don't think they are completely 'ineffectual' - they have their own strengths; they just suck at the things I'm good at. Interestingly, the best example of 'supervision' I have experienced was actually between myself (SEE-Se) and an IEE-Fi - not EII (wow, it's bloody confusing ). He really infuriated me with what I perceived as his weakness and inability to act upon and in accordance with his strongly held moral views. I remember during a heated conversation once, shouting at him, "Actions speak louder than words!" He could sit around all day dreamily envisioning and talking about his idea of Utopia; yet when it came down to actually ACTING upon these ideas and turning them into something REAL and WORKABLE - he failed, every single time. It drove me round the fucking bend! In the end I gradually grew to see it as weakness in character and a lack of integrity; I became quite harsh with him and tried to push him, telling him to "pull his socks up" and focus if he wanted to achieve things. Because of this, he saw me as overly critical and aggressive, to the point where he found it difficult to continue our close friendship. Obviously, now I understand the different dynamics that were at play between us. I try not to view him in this way, just like I try not to see my sister as 'weaker' and more 'vulnerable.' It's harder to comment on my relationship with her; being 12 years older makes me naturally feel like the 'supervisor' in our relationship. I believe that applying appropriate psychological distance is helping me maintain a healthier relationship with her.



> Hm. That's interesting. My dad is an SLI and his sister is an SEE, and the criticism is typically that she is too frenetic, too "zany," too scattered and disorganized - and, that she pays little attention to the advice he gives her about finances, college planning, directions, etc, will call him randomly for 5 minutes to talk, then suddenly have to go. All of this to me seems rather pointless to complain about. If you don't want to listen to it, don't. Let her go on, and respond if it's something important, she won't know that you didn't listen to the random parts anyway - the irony of having played the game of letting that happen is hilariously satisfying in itself XD.
> 
> It's interesting because some sources say Se needs Ni to dampen its over-energy so it isn't focusing on ridiculous things that won't profit. Si can't do that - it tries to redirect it into seeing something else S-oriented (finance, college, etc) as more important than that energy.


Yeah, I pay little attention to the advice my SLI gives me. I mean, I try and listen, and try to take on board whats been said, but generally I think a lot of it is a bit over-cautious and redundant. I am much more open to advice given by my SO (who is an ILI). Hell, he even tells me what I need before I'm even aware there was a problem/issue. It's also done in a way that I don't find patronizing. It's to-the-point, relevant and digestible.



zinnia said:


> A much better response, indeed. XD
> 
> That's a shame though - I find unless someone is going strangely overboard with jokes about murdering and torturing people, I don't usually get "shocked" (offended, eh, maybe... ha)


I'd probably offend you then.


----------



## zinnia

Kintsugi said:


> I'd probably offend you then.


Ah, you sure? If you have extensive plans right down to what drug you'd use and how you'd inject it, where you'd place it, you have already procured it... yeaaaaahhhhh maybe I'd wonder about you. LOL.

And now I am worried what your answer will be... 

This reminds me of when I told someone I would love to be able to punch most kids in the face and she went into this moralistic speech. I thought, "I didn't say I actually would and second OMG really." @[email protected]


----------



## Kintsugi

zinnia said:


> Ah, you sure? If you have extensive plans right down to what drug you'd use and how you'd inject it, where you'd place it, you have already procured it... yeaaaaahhhhh maybe I'd wonder about you. LOL.


I think people are generally more concerned by my lack of "plans."


----------



## Entropic

Kintsugi said:


> I think people are generally more concerned by my lack of "plans."


Is that in relation to Si types? Because I get that a lot from my ESE stepmom. Very clearly Ni vulnerable anyway. She doesn't see my plans as plans. She just thinks I'm sitting around doing what appears to be nothing productive or meaningful in my life by mostly what appears to her, sitting around and waiting for nothing, that is opposite to how she thinks is how one achieves a good life which is very in line with Si values. Such a big contrast to my ESI aunt who said that the fact I am planning about how I intend my life would be is what matters, not what I exactly spend it on.


----------



## Kintsugi

ephemereality said:


> Is that in relation to Si types? Because I get that a lot from my ESE stepmom. Very clearly Ni vulnerable anyway. She doesn't see my plans as plans. She just thinks I'm sitting around doing what appears to be nothing productive or meaningful in my life by mostly what appears to her, sitting around and waiting for nothing, that is opposite to how she thinks is how one achieves a good life which is very in line with Si values. Such a big contrast to my ESI aunt who said that the fact I am planning about how I intend my life would be is what matters, not what I exactly spend it on.


Yeah, I'd say so.

I find this a particular issue with Ni-PoLR types. I grew up in an Alpha/Delta houeshold; ESE mother and LSE father. I have caused them despair and headaches my whole life through not following their advice to take a 'stable' and 'secure' path in life. An example of this is a current cause of tension between us at the moment. Since completing my undergraduate degree last year I made the decision to take time out to focus on personal development and self-exploration. I am working, so I'm able to pay my bills and rent; it's not a particularly exciting job, and it's definitely not something I see myself doing in 5 years time, but for this stage in my life, its perfect. Now, my parents just don't understand any of this. In their view, I should be working every hour under the sun in order to keep pushing myself up the career ladder to earn more, so that I can eventually pay for a mortgage and save for a pension. I see this as completely pointless and an utter waste of time and effort; I have absolutely no desire to turn myself into a 'busybody' who spends their entire life working hard without taking the time to stop and consider what direction they are actually going in. I don't feel I can discuss my personal goals with my parents; they just sort of roll their eyes and accuse me of being "self-centered" and "selfish." I perceive it as a very black-and-white worldview.


----------



## Entropic

Kintsugi said:


> Yeah, I'd say so.
> 
> I find this a particular issue with Ni-PoLR types. I grew up in an Alpha/Delta houeshold; ESE mother and LSE father. I have caused them despair and headaches my whole life through not following their advice to take a 'stable' and 'secure' path in life. An example of this is a current cause of tension between us at the moment. Since completing my undergraduate degree last year I made the decision to take time out to focus on personal development and self-exploration. I am working, so I'm able to pay my bills and rent; it's not a particularly exciting job, and it's definitely not something I see myself doing in 5 years time, but for this stage in my life, its perfect. Now, my parents just don't understand any of this. In their view, I should be working every hour under the sun in order to keep pushing myself up the career ladder to earn more, so that I can eventually pay for a mortgage and save for a pension. I see this as completely pointless and an utter waste of time and effort; I have absolutely no desire to turn myself into a 'busybody' who spends their entire life working hard without taking the time to stop and consider what direction they are actually going in. I don't feel I can discuss my personal goals with my parents; they just sort of roll their eyes and accuse me of being "self-centered" and "selfish." I perceive it as a very black-and-white worldview.


Very spot on concerning my ESE stepmom. She always wants me to seek the stable way and she might even mock me concerning what she thinks are lack of accomplishments. I remember I took on a low paying job because I needed a job and she asked me if this is what I want to do in 5 years, snidely sthat it was a bad job. And nowthat I'm unemployed it's even worse. She mockingly told me I should go beg on the street when I was out of money and said I have to do this or that to get it because you can never know what money you have before you have it and so on. 

Similarly I don't want to discuss my life with her. I know she grew up in a poor family but she keeps acting like she still has no bread on the table and expects me to be like her. So frustrating.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

That sucks, as your parents are trying to mess up with your own plans. I had better luck in such sense, as my mother never bitched because I wanted to leave my former major, as she agreed that it was better to change my plans now than staying on a career that would bring pure unhappiness to me later. Still she and my other relatives wanted that I asked first the pros and cons of taking a risky move, but at the end I managed to leave biochemistry, and I don't regret that change. Now, my father knew about that and he asked my reasons, but I haven't bothered to tell that to him yet, as I don't recognize his authority over me, since he lives on other country and I barely know him as well.

My mom is probably some Ne-type, so she is a bit more flexible with those daily chores and other related crap, plus she is also messy in some way, but she also has some conservative ideas that creep me out.


----------



## itsme45

Ananael said:


> You seemed to be equivocating the two, though. Yes they are both weak and devalued, however, you seem to be describing the role in terms of the nature of the PoLR function to some degree. I'd say that the relationship between someone and their role isn't nearly as negative as the one with the PoLR function since the role and the base are share certain attributes (rational vs. irrational and introversion vs. extroversion). The PoLR is opposite in those attributes, so the rifts between a person and their PoLR function are more likely to be pronounced.


so I don't know if you're ILE now...you're ok with Se?

I'm not really ok with Ne :/




FreeBeer said:


> I have a question. Why do most Ts in general not use the social currency of the forums more often? I'm interested in how you guys view it / understand it. (I mean the thanks button). It is very obvious to me and I have a theory so I want to see if its true.


I use it when I see there's a point to it. Not interested in factions, I'm the lone top dog 

I sometimes use it for Fe reason too, opening a thread and then thanking answers...though I do prefer to thank the ones that had a real point.




liminalthought said:


> I would get rid of the like button all together. Otherwise I'd replace it with something like "constructive post", a la 16types.info


+1 for adding the option of constructive post. I would use that more often.




liminalthought said:


> It does happen when people want to polarize things. It probably has to do with the aristocrat/democrat dichotomy. Experiences can make you learn to watch out for it, sometimes you can't escape and the mind eject button is not an option. It's respectable that it's something you don't worry about (probably immune to), I have no doubt about your way of judgement.
> 
> When it's something that's often in your way, you become very aware of how it limits you through the environment and you have to learn ways to get around it (however painful)
> BUT IT WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST! Your social currency economy will not crumble yet.:laughing:


I don't quite understand how the thanks button affects you so deeply.


----------



## Helios

itsme45 said:


> so I don't know if you're ILE now...you're ok with Se?
> 
> I'm not really ok with Ne :/


What makes you say that I'm okay with Se? But ILE-Ti is basically my type, though I need to revisit my Reinin traits, reassess my cognitive style, and distinguish between Si PoLR and Si DS.


----------



## itsme45

Ananael said:


> What makes you say that I'm okay with Se? But ILE-Ti is basically my type, though I need to revisit my Reinin traits, reassess my cognitive style, and distinguish between Si PoLR and Si DS.


well OK compared to PoLR, is what I meant.

btw I think DS and PoLR couldn't be any more different 

you know... DS =/= PoLR 

I'm sure you know, DS should be a lot more enjoyable than PoLR.

PS: I'm not picking on you personally, I just found it funny compared to your earlier posts, sorry.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

MNiS said:


> There's a reason why some people are old money, some are wealthy, others are rich and others make a lot of money but would be considered working poor.


? Not sure I understand what that has to do with it.


----------



## Helios

itsme45 said:


> well OK compared to PoLR, is what I meant.
> 
> btw I think DS and PoLR couldn't be any more different
> 
> you know... DS =/= PoLR
> 
> I'm sure you know, DS should be a lot more enjoyable than PoLR.
> 
> PS: I'm not picking on you personally, I just found it funny compared to your earlier posts, sorry.


Haha yes you're right, DS =/= PoLR. However, I've noticed a tendency for people to confuse their PoLR and DS IEs when they type themselves. The thing is I relate to Fi DS and Si PoLR rather than Fi PoLR and Si DS which is just weird. Si is not something I'm particularly fond of or comfortable with, but maybe I've just had bad experiences with Si leading types in the past. 

Why are you apologizing? Haha. It's fun to mess with people when they're drunk and confused, well at least for me.


----------



## itsme45

Ananael said:


> Haha yes you're right, DS =/= PoLR. However, I've noticed a tendency for people to confuse their PoLR and DS IEs when they type themselves. The thing is I relate to Fi DS and Si PoLR rather than Fi PoLR and Si DS which is just weird. Si is not something I'm particularly fond of or comfortable with, but maybe I've just had bad experiences with Si leading types in the past.


Ah, hmm, interesting, but otherwise you relate to Ne/Ti valuing? 

Also, are you kind of fond of Fi, then?




> Why are you apologizing? Haha. It's fun to mess with people when they're drunk and confused, well at least for me.


Yeah it's fun  but some people disagree on that :/


----------



## Helios

itsme45 said:


> Ah, hmm, interesting, but otherwise you relate to Ne/Ti valuing?
> 
> Also, are you kind of fond of Fi, then?


Ne/Ti makes sense, yes. If anything, I relate to strong N and T functions in the ego and id block.
I'm quite fond of it, yes. 




> Yeah it's fun  but some people disagree on that :/


Someone will always give you shit for something you like just because it bothers them. They can get over themselves.


----------



## itsme45

Ananael said:


> Ne/Ti makes sense, yes. If anything, I relate to strong N and T functions in the ego and id block.
> I'm quite fond of it, yes.


What made you switch from LIE to ILE then? 




> Someone will always give you shit for something you like just because it bothers them. They can get over themselves.


Ehehe yeah


----------



## Scelerat

itsme45 said:


> What made you switch from LIE to ILE then?


Because he couldn't stand living a LIE?


----------



## Helios

itsme45 said:


> What made you switch from LIE to ILE then?


You should have been there for the google hangout. :laughing:
We could also have a chat on skype or something one on one. 



Scelerat said:


> Because he couldn't stand living a LIE?


I couldn't. It was time for a change.


----------



## MNiS

Nonsense said:


> ? Not sure I understand what that has to do with it.


I'm giving you a riddle. If Socionics is top to bottom, read that in order from right to left. Make the connection.


----------



## liminalthought

itsme45 said:


> *I don't quite understand how* the thanks button affects you so deeply.


What are you confused about, exactly?


----------



## itsme45

Ananael said:


> You should have been there for the google hangout. :laughing:
> We could also have a chat on skype or something one on one.


Oh skype could work fine yeah... PM me your skype? 




liminalthought said:


> What are you confused about, exactly?


Why it bothers you... Just tryin' to understand Fe PoLR ;p


----------



## liminalthought

itsme45 said:


> Why it bothers you... Just tryin' to understand Fe PoLR ;p


In the end it's just a PerC function. There isn't _that_ much to it, the button itself doesn't bother me. It's probably not a good idea to give too much weight to my personal example, if you're really trying to understand.


----------



## itsme45

liminalthought said:


> In the end it's just a PerC function. There isn't _that_ much to it, the button itself doesn't bother me. It's probably not a good idea to give too much weight to my personal example, if you're really trying to understand.


well if it was just your idea of a joke, okay 

btw no, I only involved Fe PoLR because you yourself related it to Fe


----------



## liminalthought

itsme45 said:


> well if it was just your idea of a joke, okay
> 
> btw no, I only involved Fe PoLR because you yourself related it to Fe


Why would I be joking? More importantly, what will you yourself involve what next?


----------



## itsme45

liminalthought said:


> Why would I be joking? More importantly, what will you yourself involve what next?


well... I was referring to such humorous content as following: "_Have you ever felt the wrath of the like button list bandwagon?" _

PS - OMG why is it that I always try to explain things to ILIs and they also always try to explain things to me? except when not  It's fun though


----------



## liminalthought

itsme45 said:


> well... I was referring to such humorous content as following: "_Have you ever felt the wrath of the like button list bandwagon?" _
> 
> PS - OMG why is it that I always try to explain things to ILIs and they also always try to explain things to me? except when not  It's fun though


OooOo! why didn't you say so? I guess I'm glad you found that specific line funny. I intended to be somewhat playful with that, though the main point of that post was really to explain a frustration over something that happened in past experience.

How am I explaining things to you? If anything, your above reply is the first light of an explanation in this exchange. Isn't it my role to ask tons of questions and expect you to answer? except when not  it _is_ fun though.:laughing:


----------



## itsme45

liminalthought said:


> OooOo! why didn't you say so? I guess I'm glad you found that specific line funny. I intended to be somewhat playful with that, though the main point of that post was really to explain a frustration over something that happened in past experience.
> 
> How am I explaining things to you? If anything, your above reply is the first light of an explanation in this exchange. Isn't it my role to ask tons of questions and expect you to answer? except when not  it _is_ fun though.:laughing:


 Yeah I guessed it was frustrations from elsewhere. 

Eh, I don't know what your role is supposed to be in ILI-SLE relation but sure if you say so  Fun's always good


----------



## liminalthought

itsme45 said:


> Yeah I guessed it was frustrations from elsewhere.
> 
> Eh, I don't know what your role is supposed to be in ILI-SLE relation but sure if you say so  Fun's always good


This situation has happened before, if you remember, I do this on purpose.


----------



## Entropic

liminalthought said:


> I'm not looking to give my own opinion, unless I have something important and well thought out to share. I'm not acting as if there is no value, I just thought the topic was getting recycled too much to be able see anything new. What you say about value and changing a situation is true, but I'm not sure why you would need to explain that to me. Things just happened on their own, I never asked anyone to change anything for me if that's what you mean.


Because what you expressed clearly seemed like a complaint but instead of actually doing something about it you just gave off the impression you rather sat on the side complaining instead of doing something about it. 



> It's interesting to hear to the experiences of people who have the function accessible to them, it gives me something to analyze in comparison to what Se is in the theory. By doing this, I can build my knowledge of every function further than what's described in sources, but that also means it will be difficult to not be skeptical about what people claim a connection to Se is.
> 
> Your interpretation of Se is ok, but I already know what it is.


Then why ask in the first place? It won't get any deeper than that in terms of gore. 




> Sure. I just think the emphasis on gore is unfounded and has been over-idealized.


I fail to see how it was idealized in this thread.


----------



## Vermillion

liminalthought said:


> The topic was interesting. I just couldn't see anything else of value that I could mine from it since it was last mentioned. I question whether gore is really the focus, instead of something else more comprehensive that would include gore but not only. That thing would probably be Se, which isn't exclusively described as a tendency towards gore. I guess overemphasis of gore as Se has my alarm going since I've seen it described as more than that simply and I don't want to be misinformed. I just get impatient and also I wanted to have the discussion move on to something else interesting again, which to my surprise did happen.


Well ok, but the value of a topic is not something that can be objectively determined. Maybe other people found something they could get from this discussion? 

A liking of gore doesn't necessarily indicate Se preference because there are so many reasons people can prefer gore. So it's not that gore = Se and Se = gore; there's much more to Se (I can attest to that haha), but I think what's being discussed here is a preference for gore as a consequence of Se. So it's like we're exploring one aspect of Se; how Se can manifest itself this way or how it can fuel this preference. 



> Since you decided to prod me about this, do have anything specific to say about your relationship to gore? You say you're disappointed that more people aren't like you on the topic of gore, what is this view of gore that you would have people liken to?


Well, I simply don't like it. I find it repulsive and it makes me uncomfortable in most cases. It's not necessary that anyone should feel the same way; as long as they respect my view it's fine. I just thought it would be nice if there were some other gammas who I could sort of bond with for sharing the same taste.



ephemereality said:


> Se leads itself to experience the physical world in a very visceral way. It does not internalize the physical world and its sensations into a subjective experience, but Se wishes to expand, emphasize and stress as many experiences as possible. While anyone can experience and enjoy gore, to the Se type, the physical force of Se expresses itself in such a way that to control someone else's body or any other object for the matter, by directly applying force and sheer expression of power onto the object, is itself an expression of power. Not only does it show the lack of interest in the object as a subject which would be true for the Si type seeking stability in subjective experience and would thus find that any change on the object as something negative as it would ultimately alter the object's actual value, but it shows that one has the power to alter physical reality as we see it. To change someone's body from a living human being into a dismembered body is an expression of force and power.
> 
> 
> It's that simple, really. Nothing more, nothing less. It has to do with domination and control and a desire, willingness and ability to control the environment and shape it according to one's will.


Oh I love this description. (Funny how you can put my dominant in better words than I can >_>) I understand how this would work or feel satisfying because I can feel this way when I'm terribly angry with something or someone. That need to control, disfigure and mutilate can take over me. (other readers don't need to worry, I'm not really murderous and it's only my cushions that see the worst of my physical aggression lol)

Well, that's when I'm seriously angry. At most other times... well, you remember how I reacted to The Cell


----------



## liminalthought

ephemereality said:


> Because what you expressed clearly seemed like a complaint but instead of actually doing something about it you just gave off the impression you rather sat on the side complaining instead of doing something about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why ask in the first place? It won't get any deeper than that in terms of gore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fail to see how it was idealized in this thread.


Think what you want of it. 
Why ask what exactly? 
How do you expect me to understand your point from simply saying "I fail to see.."? 

If you look back on the thread wherever it came up, you can see how the idea slowly became more upheld beyond into personal background interests too far removed from theory to be explained under socionics. It isn't a problem that people express what they like and what interests they've developed, holding it to follow from the theory by popular confirmation without first hand material support is a problem.


----------



## liminalthought

Amaterasu said:


> Well ok, but the value of a topic is not something that can be objectively determined. Maybe other people found something they could get from this discussion?


Well, I did say observing can add background to what you already know from the theory. I would guess the value is in the observations you think to be in line with what you already know, but are not stated word for word in the literature. Things that stand as something extra to have to help you understand the theory's application to real people in real situations. Of course other people would make their own insights, I just thought there was enough discussion on it already enough to be able to know what to expect if it came up again.



Amaterasu said:


> A liking of gore doesn't necessarily indicate Se preference because there are so many reasons people can prefer gore. So it's not that gore = Se and Se = gore; there's much more to Se (I can attest to that haha), but I think what's being discussed here is a preference for gore as a consequence of Se. So it's like we're exploring one aspect of Se; how Se can manifest itself this way or how it can fuel this preference.


Yeah, that's a little like what I mean. There's gore as a possible product of having an interest in intense expression of convictions and original experiences with it as led by Se (the kind of info I'm filtering in if "gore" is discussed), and then there's gore as a totem shallowly over emphasized and dressed with language from the theory.



Amaterasu said:


> Well, I simply don't like it. I find it repulsive and it makes me uncomfortable in most cases. It's not necessary that anyone should feel the same way; as long as they respect my view it's fine. I just thought it would be nice if there were some other gammas who I could sort of bond with for sharing the same taste.


Here I thought I was going to hear the greatest savagery of the most cutthroat combative nature. My questions weren't scornful enough.


----------



## Vermillion

liminalthought said:


> Well, I did say observing can add background to what you already know from the theory. I would guess the value is in the observations you think to be in line with what you already know, but isn't stated word for word in the literature. Things that stand as something extra to have to help you understand the theory's application to real people in real situations. Of course other people would make their own insights, I just thought there was enough discussion on it already enough to be able to know what to expect if it came up again.


Sometimes talking can help in clarifying and solidifying thoughts already floating around in the head. Besides, who knows what possible new insight could be prevented from being formulated by ending the discussion? So the discussion may be enough for some and not enough for others. 



> and then there's gore as a totem over emphasized and dressed with language from the theory.


 What do you mean? I don't understand how it's being over-emphasized here. It's one of the aspects being discussed, so it's being explored in depth. If the other aspects and preferences Se lends itself to are not being talked about currently, that doesn't mean they're any less important or any less worthy of emphasis. They're just not being discussed. 



> Here I thought I was going to hear the greatest savagery of the most cutthroat combative nature.


Too bad man, looks like you thought wrong. 



> My questions weren't scornful enough.


If you want to scorn me, then be more open about it. Though I don't see the point in trying to pick a fight with me when I wasn't even being hostile to you in any way.


----------



## liminalthought

Amaterasu said:


> Sometimes talking can help in clarifying and solidifying thoughts already floating around in the head. Besides, who knows what possible new insight could be prevented from being formulated by ending the discussion? So the discussion may be enough for some and not enough for others.


I’m not denying other’s participation; anyone could take up the topic again whenever. Like we are now. Essentially my want was to change how the discussion was growing, _in all selfishness_ and for the sake of my own thinking. It never needed to change, I just wanted to express that.




Amaterasu said:


> What do you mean? I don't understand how it's being over-emphasized here. It's one of the aspects being discussed, so it's being explored in depth. If the other aspects and preferences Se lends itself to are not being talked about currently, that doesn't mean they're any less important or any less worthy of emphasis. They're just not being discussed.


I think there haven’t been enough material points developed given the effort at this discussion’s length so I question what it is that we do have filling in at such length. It’s probably the afterthoughts that post-observers form as totems in an effort to make what they've seen more concrete and static. From this I thought the topic may have been exhausted and caused me to “whine”, though I admit there was some good commentary in the second burst, but that was probably the peak of it.




Amaterasu said:


> Too bad man, looks like you thought wrong.
> 
> If you want to scorn me, then be more open about it. Though I don't see the point in trying to pick a fight with me when I wasn't even being hostile to you in any way.


Well, that’s the point, how do you handle hostility as a self-proclaimed Se user. I could have seen written manifestations of gore in action.


----------



## Vermillion

liminalthought said:


> Well, that’s the point, how do you handle hostility as a self-proclaimed Se user.


(I'm assuming that's a question.) It depends on the hostility, who it's from and how it makes me feel. Why do you ask?



> I could have seen written manifestations of gore in action.


Well I specifically said gore makes me uncomfortable. Why am I going to describe gory stuff and make myself feel uneasy? When I said something makes me uncomfortable, why am I even being expected to make my mind engage it? 

Or did you mean something else with what you said?


----------



## liminalthought

Amaterasu said:


> (I'm assuming that's a question.) It depends on the hostility, who it's from and how it makes me feel. Why do you ask?


It wasn't a question. Just something I thought I would get to SEE.



Amaterasu said:


> Well I specifically said gore makes me uncomfortable. Why am I going to describe gory stuff and make myself feel uneasy? When I said something makes me uncomfortable, why am I even being expected to make my mind engage it?
> 
> Or did you mean something else with what you said?


Aside from being a little sarcastic, I also thought I might get a glimpse into this for the topic: 



Amaterasu said:


> That need to control, disfigure and mutilate can take over me. (other readers don't need to worry, I'm not really murderous and it's only my cushions that see the worst of my physical aggression lol)


Apparently, you're not uneasy with your cushions. 

EDIT: 



Amaterasu said:


> I think it's an interesting topic to have come up, from reading how different people feel about it. Although I am slightly disappointed that more people aren't like me and don't like gore altogether :/



This whole time you meant "...that more people aren't like me and _*dislike*_ gore altogether"


*facepalm* I see now.


----------



## Vermillion

liminalthought said:


> This whole time you meant "...that more people aren't like me and _*dislike*_ gore altogether"
> 
> 
> *facepalm* I see now.


Lol yes I did. Misunderstanding cleared up now, yes? xD


----------



## Entropic

liminalthought said:


> Think what you want of it.
> Why ask what exactly?
> How do you expect me to understand your point from simply saying "I fail to see.."?
> 
> If you look back on the thread wherever it came up, you can see how the idea slowly became more upheld beyond into personal background interests too far removed from theory to be explained under socionics. It isn't a problem that people express what they like and what interests they've developed, holding it to follow from the theory by popular confirmation without first hand material support is a problem.


The question is: why do you care? It's a gamma *hangout* thread. If you want to discuss the theory behind as to how and why Se types experience gore, then make one. Or steer the discussion in a direction you find preferable by simply providing in a way that's meaningful to you. It's not difficult at all. 

Like here:


> I’m not denying other’s participation; anyone could take up the topic again whenever. Like we are now. Essentially my want was to change how the discussion was growing, in all selfishness and for the sake of my own thinking. It never needed to change, I just wanted to express that.


Please tell me how it is not meant to be interpreted as "I'm too fucking lazy to do it myself so I'll just sit in the corner and cry like a baby and complain until someone fixes the problem for me"?


----------



## Dragheart Luard

I don't have problems with gore if it has some meaning or relevance for a story, but senseless gore it's so pointless that ends being boring, like I noticed when I watched a short video of Genocyber.

Now about the annoying discussion that happened thanks to liminalthought's posts, really making such scene about something so easy to change is so pointless that I facepalmed at some parts of that useless chat. Seriously that seemed more like a need for getting attention than real interest for adding new ideas, and showing such lack of will for creating another discussion, I wonder why you even bother to be around this hangout. If you don't like a topic and have no interest on doing a real change, then please don't begin to rant because others aren't following textbook definitions of Se or adding other useless complaints that will go nowhere. The solution for your problems it's so easy, so I still wonder why you don't apply it instead of wasting words on those complaints.


----------



## liminalthought

ephemereality said:


> Please tell me how it is not meant to be interpreted as "I'm too fucking lazy to do it myself so I'll just sit in the corner and cry like a baby and complain until someone fixes the problem for me"?


I should be ashamed. ahahahaha 



Blue Flare said:


> Now about the annoying discussion that happened thanks to liminalthought's posts, really making such scene about something so easy to change is so pointless that I facepalmed at some parts of that useless chat. Seriously that seemed more like a need for getting attention than real interest for adding new ideas, and showing such lack of will for creating another discussion, I wonder why you even bother to be around this hangout. If you don't like a topic and have no interest on doing a real change, then please don't begin to rant because others aren't following textbook definitions of Se or adding other useless complaints that will go nowhere. The solution for your problems it's so easy, so I still wonder why you don't apply it instead of wasting words on those complaints.


Your ranting is just a little more exaggerated than the above. There's more authentic whining here than anything near constructive.


----------



## Entropic

liminalthought said:


> Your ranting is just a little more exaggerated than the above. There's more authentic whining here than anything near constructive.


Define "constructive". And how did your own whining as you admitted it was as much yourself, provide anything constructive? And when I offered a suggestion for you, you dismiss it as not suiting your tastes?


----------



## liminalthought

ephemereality said:


> Define "constructive". And how did your own whining as you admitted it was as much yourself, provide anything constructive? And when I offered a suggestion for you, you dismiss it as not suiting your tastes?


Dictionary definition, in this context. What whining, specifically? Your suggestion didn't really address my point and I wasn't asking for explanation, I was just explaining what I had thought about it.


----------



## Entropic

liminalthought said:


> Dictionary definition, in this context. What whining, specifically? Your suggestion didn't really address my point and I wasn't asking for explanation, I was just explaining what I had thought about it.


Hence, it didn't seem constructive at all since your "thoughts" didn't actually contribute to the subject in terms of furthering a discussion.


----------



## liminalthought

ephemereality said:


> Hence, it didn't seem constructive at all since your "thoughts" didn't actually contribute to the subject in terms of furthering a discussion.


My purpose wasn't to further the discussion in the first place. Those "thoughts" were just my criticism of the topic in order to explain why I wanted to change it. 

This is going on too far so I suggest we stop here.


----------



## Elyasis

Sooo... I was on Tumblr.










Jack (LIE) and Balzac (ILI).

Slytherin is pretty Beta, heavy on the aristocracy, in my opinion but I can see the Gamma NTs there as well.

Gryffindor: Gamma SFs, Beta STs
Slytherin: Beta NFs, Gamma NTs
Hufflepuff: Mostly Delta, some alpha SFs
Ravenclaw: Mostly Alpha NTs, probably some Gamma NTs.


----------



## itsme45

MNiS said:


> Why is there an SLE @_itsme45_ in the *Gamma* Quadra thread??


Beware, I'll be coming back here...


----------



## Entropic

Elyasis said:


> Sooo... I was on Tumblr.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jack (LIE) and Balzac (ILI).
> 
> Slytherin is pretty Beta, heavy on the aristocracy, in my opinion but I can see the Gamma NTs there as well.
> 
> Gryffindor: Gamma SFs, Beta STs
> Slytherin: Beta NFs, Gamma NTs
> Hufflepuff: Mostly Delta, some alpha SFs
> Ravenclaw: Mostly Alpha NTs, probably some Gamma NTs.


Yeah, I agree on this. Though Gryffindor is also very aristocratic in its own way (considering that the entire competition between Gryffindor and Slytherin was based on that the could not be equal but one must be superior in the first place, Gryffindor certainly did not include some form of "all are welcome" attitude like Hufflepuff to me), so is Ravenclaw in terms of lore. Very delta aristocratic, more than beta though. I would say the only truly democratic quadra is Hufflepuff, but I always saw it so full of alpha SF it was an immediate turn-off no matter how you look at it. 

With that said, I always preferred Slytherin if I had to pick a Hogwarts house. I always liked the "darkness" the house emanated.


----------



## Elyasis

ephemereality said:


> With that said, I always preferred Slytherin if I had to pick a Hogwarts house. I always liked the "darkness" the house emanated.


I liked Ravenclaw for awhile... until I realized that pure research would never be my thing. Also, Slytherin House has windows to the lake. Purportedly, it is one of the warmer parts of the castle during the winter, as well. Which is good, because I'm strangely cold blooded for a mammal.


----------



## Entropic

Elyasis said:


> I liked Ravenclaw for awhile... until I realized that pure research would never be my thing. Also, Slytherin House has windows to the lake. Purportedly, it is one of the warmer parts of the castle during the winter, as well. Which is good, because I'm strangely cold blooded for a mammal.


Ravenclaw is really thinking for the sake of thinking which I can't do either. I need thinking with a purpose. Also, I think Slytherin has the best house crest.


----------



## Psithurism

Slytherin as well for me for sure.

I also happen to like snakes.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Blissful Melancholy said:


> Slytherin as well for me for sure.
> 
> I also happen to like snakes.


Snakes are cute.


----------



## Psithurism

Nonsense said:


> Snakes are cute.


Someone called me a snake once. Best compliment I've gotten.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Blissful Melancholy said:


> Someone called me a snake once. Best compliment I've gotten.


Why did they call you that? Do you look like one


----------



## Entropic

Blissful Melancholy said:


> Someone called me a snake once. Best compliment I've gotten.


----------



## Psithurism

Nonsense said:


> Why did they call you that? Do you look like one


Probably because they thought I was being being deceitful or something. I wasn't though. I just don't like smiling if I don't feel like it.

Although I do tend to have a smirk sometimes when I'm ''trolling'' someone I don't like. Could be it. Might make me look two-faced/cunning during that moment.


----------



## Elyasis

Gin is my favourite Bleach character, bar none. His character is so subtly crafted.

Rangiku (SEE) and Gin (ILI)?

Gin is definitely Te-Fi. And Rangiku has a lot of Se (probably Fi as well, considering her loyalty to certain people).


ephemereality said:


> Also, I think Slytherin has the best house crest.


----------



## Psithurism

Elyasis said:


> Gin is my favourite Bleach character, bar none. His character is so subtly crafted.
> 
> Rangiku (SEE) and Gin (ILI)?
> 
> Gin is definitely Te-Fi. And Rangiku has a lot of Se (probably Fi as well, considering her loyalty to certain people).


Yea, he's one of my favorites as well. Top 3 for sure. I was hesitating between putting Shinsui or Gin as my avatar, ahah.

I think ILI is appropriate but it's realy hard to say because he's so shady. His fight with Ichigo is pretty much the only ''serious'' content we have.

As for Rangiku, she seems more like a Fe type so I'd say ExTp.



>


Ooooh, shiny. And it's even my favorite color (dark/forest green).


----------



## Entropic

Elyasis said:


> Gin is my favourite Bleach character, bar none. His character is so subtly crafted.
> 
> Rangiku (SEE) and Gin (ILI)?
> 
> Gin is definitely Te-Fi. And Rangiku has a lot of Se (probably Fi as well, considering her loyalty to certain people).


Yeah, I think Gin is an ILI. That character reading he did of Rukia was very NiTe to me. Rankigu I am not as sure about. Ultimately, there was a lot of psychological distance between them despite having feelings for each other that seems uncharacteristic for a dual pair, and there was a lot of push-pull where they just didn't seem quite to understand what the other desired. I'm more inclined to think SLE if you are going with Se base. She's more similar to Yoruichi than say, Riruka.


----------



## Taika

One of the reasons I really enjoy being with Gammas is that you are not even expected to get along with just everybody and to be anti-social if you show little interest to even try. I never considered myself unable to socialize, just picky which I couldn't see to be wrong so being poorly understood by probably Alphas and Betas was both annoying and sad. 

Another thing I enjoy with Gammas is that when I want to discuss about something it is not made to a some kind of joke or otherwise an amusing subject like it would hurt without. One of my pet peeves are actually people who cannot seriously talk business but only try to find something to laugh about. I can enjoy humor but it has to be in the right context. The same with expressing feelings, I disapprove it highly if someone tries to suggest I should do it when the situation is not the right one for that. I can totally see how certain people easily consider me reluctant to co-operate although I might be very motivated to do that if let to be who I am and do it my way, not theirs.


----------



## Vermillion

Blissful Melancholy said:


> Probably because they thought I was being being deceitful or something. I wasn't though. I just don't like smiling if I don't feel like it.


Same lol, either I don't smile properly at all or I smile very brightly. There is absolutely no in between and you don't know how many photos of mine have come out worse than intended because I didn't smile enough. And I remember once I had to practice singing with a group, and the people watching the practice constantly had to interrupt and remind me to smile lol.



> Although I do tend to have a smirk sometimes when I'm ''trolling'' someone I don't like. Could be it. Might make me look two-faced/cunning during that moment.


Oooh yes, the gamma smirk is the best kind of smirk there is  There's something supremely satisfying in communicating a thought or feeling that way, especially when it's received and returned appropriately. Well, I guess I've noticed it in Fi types regardless of quadra, but the delta smirk is softer and less diabolical than ours is hahaha.

One of my favorite looks to give someone is the one-eyebrow-raised judgmental smirk. There's this particular group of alphas in class that I stare at often with exactly that look, and they honestly feel so judged XD Yes, wither under my stare, this is what sustains me.



Elyasis said:


>


Though when it comes to personality I'd probably fit best in Slytherin, I don't like the color scheme bleh. Green and silver isn't really my thing. Based on colors alone, I'd pick Ravenclaw. Blue and silver looks so much more elegant. Or even Gryffindor with regal red and gold. 

And the Ravenclaws apparently have an amazing view from the common room. I'd love a spacious and airy common room like that, but I think the questions to answer to get in would frustrate me lol.

Hmm, I think I wouldn't mind hanging out with the Hufflepuffs. They seem like they're a soft (and easily manipulable) lot who I could have fun with. You know, the sort of people who will willingly include you and go "aww" if you don't participate? So they would be good to hang out with on the days I'm looking for that sort of fluffy fun. (Though what are my chances of getting in if I'm in Slytherin? )

Fun fact, the official Pottermore test sorted me into Ravenclaw. I think I'd feel tremendously out of place in that house o_o


----------



## Entropic

Amaterasu said:


> Same lol, either I don't smile properly at all or I smile very brightly. There is absolutely no in between and you don't know how many photos of mine have come out worse than intended because I didn't smile enough. And I remember once I had to practice singing with a group, and the people watching the practice constantly had to interrupt and remind me to smile lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Oooh yes, the gamma smirk is the best kind of smirk there is  There's something supremely satisfying in communicating a thought or feeling that way, especially when it's received and returned appropriately. Well, I guess I've noticed it in Fi types regardless of quadra, but the delta smirk is softer and less diabolical than ours is hahaha.
> 
> One of my favorite looks to give someone is the one-eyebrow-raised judgmental smirk. There's this particular group of alphas in class that I stare at often with exactly that look, and they honestly feel so judged XD Yes, wither under my stare, this is what sustains me.
> 
> 
> 
> Though when it comes to personality I'd probably fit best in Slytherin, I don't like the color scheme bleh. Green and silver isn't really my thing. Based on colors alone, I'd pick Ravenclaw. Blue and silver looks so much more elegant. Or even Gryffindor with regal red and gold.
> 
> And the Ravenclaws apparently have an amazing view from the common room. I'd love a spacious and airy common room like that, but I think the questions to answer to get in would frustrate me lol.
> 
> Hmm, I think I wouldn't mind hanging out with the Hufflepuffs. They seem like they're a soft (and easily manipulable) lot who I could have fun with. You know, the sort of people who will willingly include you and go "aww" if you don't participate? So they would be good to hang out with on the days I'm looking for that sort of fluffy fun. (Though what are my chances of getting it if I'm in Slytherin? )
> 
> Fun fact, the official Pottermore test sorted me into Ravenclaw. I think I'd feel tremendously out of place in that house o_o


You can always retake the test? I got Slytherin of course :kitteh:


----------



## Vermillion

ephemereality said:


> You can always retake the test? I got Slytherin of course :kitteh:


Yes, I think I will now. Of course you got Slytherin lol. You're like a poster child for it. And oh my god that's the first time I've seen you use that smiley. I'm going to have heart failure from all this surprise.


----------



## Psithurism

Amaterasu said:


> Oooh yes, the gamma smirk is the best kind of smirk there is  There's something supremely satisfying in communicating a thought or feeling that way, especially when it's received and returned appropriately. Well, I guess I've noticed it in Fi types regardless of quadra, but the delta smirk is softer and less diabolical than ours is hahaha.
> 
> One of my favorite looks to give someone is the one-eyebrow-raised judgmental smirk. There's this particular group of alphas in class that I stare at often with exactly that look, and they honestly feel so judged XD Yes, wither under my stare, this is what sustains me.


Yea, one of the reasons I initially thought I was a Fe user is that I have used smirks and ''Gin-like'' (from bleach) mannerisms a lot. But when I think about it, I usually act in a way that I'm _mocking_ Fe when I use those.
Another one is the ''Oh really? How interesting, tell me more'' smirk or raising my eyebrows when someone is being obnoxious. Similar to the Willy Wonka meme actually. 

But my main modes are just: Deadpan, smirk and the seldom cheshire grin. The latter is usually for stuff like sports when I feel competitive, I think I do it when I'm in the moment (Se inferior thing?). I've also done it when I'm annoyed at someone and being provocative, as if the argument is making me excited.

I also tend to tease/make light jabs quite often with people I like. I find gamma types are the best ones for this dynamic because they don't take it personally and know I'm just joking. Plus I don't mind it either if they do it themselves.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

I took the Pottermore test for the lulz, and got a tie between Ravenclaw and Slytherin, though from the scarce info that I know I would prefer the second option.


----------



## Entropic

Amaterasu said:


> Yes, I think I will now. Of course you got Slytherin lol. You're like a poster child for it. And oh my god that's the first time I've seen you use that smiley. I'm going to have heart failure from all this surprise.


How am I a poster child for Slytherin? Hm, I wonder how many failures you can survive.



Blue Flare said:


> I took the Pottermore test for the lulz, and got a tie between Ravenclaw and Slytherin, though from the scarce info that I know I would prefer the second option.


Err no, no Ravenclaw for you.

I could see @Flatlander in Ravenclaw perhaps though.


----------



## Vermillion

ephemereality said:


> How am I a poster child for Slytherin?


uuuuh you're a dark sort of person lol. Dark and gloomy and brooding with a wounded sort of heart. Makes sense for Slytherin.



> Hm, I wonder how many failures you can survive.


Why? Planning on giving me more?


----------



## Dragheart Luard

ephemereality said:


> Err no, no Ravenclaw for you.


I haven't read the books, so I mostly took some wild guesses lol anyway, without considering those results, which house do you think is better for me?


----------



## Vermillion

Blissful Melancholy said:


> Yea, one of the reasons I initially thought I was a Fe user is that I have used smirks and ''Gin-like'' (from bleach) mannerisms a lot. But when I think about it, I usually act in a way that I'm _mocking_ Fe when I use those.
> Another one is the ''Oh really? How interesting, tell me more'' smirk or raising my eyebrows when someone is being obnoxious. Similar to the Willy Wonka meme actually.
> 
> But my main modes are just: Deadpan, smirk and the seldom cheshire grin. The latter is usually for stuff like sports when I feel competitive, I think I do it when I'm in the moment (Se inferior thing?). I've also done it when I'm annoyed at someone and being provocative, as if the argument is making me excited.


Yes I know Gin lol. Anyway I think I resort to Fe-ish mannerisms when I find myself in a pinch and need to manipulate someone to get myself out of it. It tends to just make me more frustrated with the situation, however. I can also use it in light banter, but only when I need to regain control of the direction of said light banter because it's not going in my favor. Essentially it's something I can adopt when under stress.

Lol I think if someone cheshire grinned at me while playing a competitive sport I'd either get annoyed or freak the fuck out, or both. My main modes are a) hyper-serious, pensive face, and b) alert, amused face. a) is default; you'd never guess I'm an SEE at first glance lol.



> I also tend to tease/make light jabs quite often with people I like. I find gamma types are the best ones for this dynamic because they don't take it personally and know I'm just joking. Plus I don't mind it either if they do it themselves.


Yeah, and it's so relieving with the gamma quadra when it comes to jokes like that. Some other types don't retaliate at all, and I'm just left driving a vicious joke forward while they resort to being victimized by it. It's no fun. Some other types turn the joke around and make it personal, and that's even more annoying because fuck off, I'm not here to hurt feelings or have feelings hurt. If you're going to be a hypersensitive prick then don't expect me to participate.



Blue Flare said:


> I haven't read the books, so I mostly took some wild guesses lol anyway, without considering those results, which house do you think is better for me?


Slytherin first, and then Gryffindor, imo anyway.


----------



## Entropic

Amaterasu said:


> uuuuh you're a dark sort of person lol. Dark and gloomy and brooding with a wounded sort of heart. Makes sense for Slytherin.


I see.



> Why? Planning on giving me more?


Well, I need to anticipate for the future.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Lol, all this talk about expressions in the Gamma thread. I'm not even sure wtf my face is doing unless I'm looking at a reflection. Although I suppose it would be more noticeable if you're deadpan most of the time. =P



Blissful Melancholy said:


> Yea, one of the reasons I initially thought I was a Fe user is that I have used smirks and ''Gin-like'' (from bleach) mannerisms a lot. But when I think about it, I usually act in a way that I'm _mocking_ Fe when I use those.
> Another one is the ''Oh really? How interesting, tell me more'' smirk or raising my eyebrows when someone is being obnoxious. Similar to the Willy Wonka meme actually.


Ah well, there's a bit more to Fe than smiling no? So yeah, I'd say it's better to pay attention to your thought-process than what kind of smile you make.

I don't know which house I would be in. I like the scheme of Slytherin, but I'm not that ~dark and cunning~ to be honest. I would probably fit into Hufflepuff because I'm boring. :tongue:


----------



## Psithurism

Nonsense said:


> Ah well, there's a bit more to Fe than smiling no? So yeah, I'd say it's better to pay attention to your thought-process than what kind of smile you make.


Yea, obviously I know that now. This is when I was a MBTI newbie.


----------



## Elyasis

Nonsense said:


> I don't know which house I would be in. I like the scheme of Slytherin, but I'm not that ~dark and cunning~ to be honest. I would probably fit into Hufflepuff because I'm boring. :tongue:












Notice the Hufflepuff one just says 'Potato '.



My face is usually neutral or smirking. I have to do a fake smile for work that I feel is really big, but is probably just a slight twitch of my lips. It's hard to fake emotions, okay. Don't know why customer service is required to... need to live in a society where customer service can be honest with you.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Elyasis said:


> Notice the Hufflepuff one just says 'Potato '.


It does? :shocked:



> My face is usually neutral or smirking. I have to do a fake smile for work that I feel is really big, but is probably just a slight twitch of my lips. It's hard to fake emotions, okay. Don't know why customer service is required to... need to live in a society where customer service can be honest with you.


Lmao, I might manage to put a smile on my lips on a regular basis, but I'm not sure if I could deal with the stupidity that usually follows retail-jobs.


----------



## zinnia

Nonsense said:


> Lmao, I might manage to put a smile on my lips on a regular basis, but I'm not sure if I could deal with the stupidity that usually follows retail-jobs.


Ughhhhhhhhh 

I mean, okay, I get how you should smile and be pleasant but there comes a point where you really just need to say "get the fuck over yourself" when a customer screams at you and threatens to get you fired because you can't give them a refund on a $3 item. <_< 

Or "what do you mean you don't carry this?! THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!!" ... right, because some minimum wage customer service rep has control over what a huge chain store carries...

the stupidity, the rudeness, it hurts

Also lol potato. I think the sorting hat would stick me in hufflepuff out of pure frustration that I don't fit any of his silly personality archetypes P:


----------



## Entropic

I just figured out a famous philosopher fitting (ooh the alliteration) gamma quadra: Sören Kierkegaard (too lazy to copy paste Danish ö ok?). 

_I see it all perfectly; there are two possible situations - one can either do this or that. My honest opinion and my friendly advice is this: do it or do not do it - you will regret both.

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

The function of prayer is not to influence God, but rather to change the nature of the one who prays.

The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins._​


----------



## Flatlander

Elyasis said:


> Notice the Hufflepuff one just says 'Potato '.


LOL. I would've put "...I try really hard?" but yeah..

I think it was mentioned I might be Ravenclaw. I'd tell that hat to put me in Ravenclaw, yes, but I might just have Slytherin tendencies at the same time.


----------



## Word Dispenser

I'm Ravenclaw!

That aside... I'd like to point out that this Gamma needs some type of mascot. No, an emblem! A symbol!

Beyond Harry Potter, I mean...

The .. The name itself, it _begs _for it! Gamma!

Can't you _see it!?_










Pssshhhhwwwaaahahhhhhhhrrghh!


----------



## zinnia

Speaking of Slytherin and the like - are any of you bothered by how often ambition is associated with cunning and negative undertones? Even the symbolism of Slytherin house... a snake, not to be trusted.

It's as if people cannot conceive of healthy ambition - it always leads to corruption blah blah. It's stupid as hell. (and obviously this sort of thing is not seen only in Harry Potter.)


----------



## Word Dispenser

zinnia said:


> Speaking of Slytherin and the like - are any of you bothered by how often ambition is associated with cunning and negative undertones? Even the symbolism of Slytherin house... a snake, not to be trusted.
> 
> It's as if people cannot conceive of healthy ambition - it always leads to corruption blah blah. It's stupid as hell. (and obviously this sort of thing is not seen only in Harry Potter.)


Puh-lease.

Snakes and serpents are symbols of wisdom, transformation and 'death' (of sorts). Much like the phoenix, the beautiful snake lets go of its former self, the fetters of old, and embraces anew, the next season.
I've always loved snakes. And not just 'cause I grew up in the country and generally like all living organisms. roud: 

They are quite fascinating and lovely creatures. Quick, agile, and flexible. (They dislocate their jaw to eat rats and such. Or, like the King Cobra, other snakes.)

That reasonably sized tangent aside... Ambition is normally taken for fanatic zeal at times, methinks. A healthy dose of ambition never hurt anyone. But, the _idea _of 'ambition', as a force of power and control, because that's often where it leads to, is very prevalent, it would seem. I think we're heading in a direction where power, domination and strictness is looked down upon. (Or are we moving out of it? I don't know, if society is moving towards a Beta cycle...)


----------



## Elyasis

zinnia said:


> Speaking of Slytherin and the like - are any of you bothered by how often ambition is associated with cunning and negative undertones? Even the symbolism of Slytherin house... a snake, not to be trusted.
> 
> It's as if people cannot conceive of healthy ambition - it always leads to corruption blah blah. It's stupid as hell. (and obviously this sort of thing is not seen only in Harry Potter.)



Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great.
*Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)

*
The thing is that ambition can also spur progress and lead to greater human happiness. It just often becomes associated with the negative effects it has on the world. Also, it is important to have ambition that is tempered with compassion, otherwise you run the risk of spiting the world in the long term to benefit yourself in the short term. I think that kind of ambition is more commonly thought of as ambition in most of the world.


----------



## Entropic

zinnia said:


> Speaking of Slytherin and the like - are any of you bothered by how often ambition is associated with cunning and negative undertones? Even the symbolism of Slytherin house... a snake, not to be trusted.
> 
> It's as if people cannot conceive of healthy ambition - it always leads to corruption blah blah. It's stupid as hell. (and obviously this sort of thing is not seen only in Harry Potter.)


I see what you mean but I don't see a problem with it, actually. I don't see how being cunning is a negative trait. I see it as very positive for some reason. Cunning suggests something of supernatural character, an ability to read beyond the current situation, to read into the future, to predict and manipulate events into something more desirable. Between cunning and wise, I'd describe myself as cunning, easily. 

And I guess the reason why people often conceive ambition negatively is because people who succeed gain power over those who do not. Success is something to be envied, but envy means admitting that one is actually in an inferior position and I think most people have too much ego to do that, so instead they choose to belittle because it places them in a position above the people they envy. It's just an easier way of dealing with the situation. 

As for the snake itself - I think the problem with the snake as a symbol in Western spirituality stems from the fact that Eve was tricked by a snake. As to why that is I am not sure, likely has to do with local traditions where the idea emerged from, but I guess it could relate to the fact that many snakes blend well into their environment and/or because someone had issues with some local cult worshiping snakes. 

If I have to pick some animal to represent me, I wouldn't pick a snake, but as Word Dispenser points out, I think there are also many positive depictions of the snake. Health is represented by the snake, so is infinity. Granted, I think there are Christian allusions or undertones in Harry Potter, at least if one merely looks at the symbolism chosen, and because it's set in a Western context I could say that it's a more likely interpretation but it doesn't have to be the only one.


----------



## zinnia

Word Dispenser said:


> Snakes and serpents are symbols of wisdom, transformation and 'death' (of sorts). Much like the phoenix, the beautiful snake lets go of its former self, the fetters of old, and embraces anew, the next season.
> 
> That reasonably sized tangent aside... Ambition is normally taken for fanatic zeal at times, methinks. A healthy dose of ambition never hurt anyone. But, the _idea _of 'ambition', as a force of power and control, because that's often where it leads to, is very prevalent, it would seem. I think we're heading in a direction where power, domination and strictness is looked down upon. (Or are we moving out of it? I don't know, if society is moving towards a Beta cycle...)


Honestly, I personally don't have a problem with snakes. But... well, stories about the devil taking the form of a snake were shoved down my throat since I was 3. So to me, it isn't a coincidence JK Rowling chose this particular symbol. That, and you know, there's only about one or two "non-evil" characters from that house in the entire series. LOL. Unchecked ambition can be a problem but only one or two people escape that tendency out of an entire house? Are you kidding? X_X

What's even weirder about it is that it isn't ambition or leadership any of them are showing... but actually just following some shiny, manipulative revolutionary without really showing much independent thought. Not really what I would expect from ambition and cunning and blah blah; they actually just seem like a bunch of mindless thugs. 



ephemereality said:


> I see what you mean but I don't see a problem with it, actually. I don't see how being cunning is a negative trait. I see it as very positive for some reason. Cunning suggests something of supernatural character, an ability to read beyond the current situation, to read into the future, to predict and manipulate events into something more desirable. Between cunning and wise, I'd describe myself as cunning, easily.
> 
> And I guess the reason why people often conceive ambition negatively is because people who succeed gain power over those who do not. Success is something to be envied, but envy means admitting that one is actually in an inferior position and I think most people have too much ego to do that, so instead they choose to belittle because it places them in a position above the people they envy. It's just an easier way of dealing with the situation.
> 
> As for the snake itself - I think the problem with the snake as a symbol in Western spirituality stems from the fact that Eve was tricked by a snake. As to why that is I am not sure, likely has to do with local traditions where the idea emerged from, but I guess it could relate to the fact that many snakes blend well into their environment and/or because someone had issues with some local cult worshiping snakes.
> 
> If I have to pick some animal to represent me, I wouldn't pick a snake, but as Word Dispenser points out, I think there are also many positive depictions of the snake. Health is represented by the snake, so is infinity. Granted, I think there are Christian allusions or undertones in Harry Potter, at least if one merely looks at the symbolism chosen, and because it's set in a Western context I could say that it's a more likely interpretation but it doesn't have to be the only one.


I realized how I threw in so many personal biases in that one post. I imagine cunning as constant scheming, very much negative, not quite the same as foreseeing or planning, or even manipulating. Like, the image of someone with a mischievous grin, chuckling, "hee hee hee" is what I think of. As for ambition, power and envy: I've always been pretty ambitious, enjoying challenges and I've always succeeded at most things easily... so I can't relate to that envy. But it does make sense. I can imagine how people around me hated it, because it was like I was better than them or whatever... like being a threat.

Yeah, I agree with the latter part of your post. I am aware this isn't the case in all societies - China (?) views the snake as wisdom etc - but I don't think that's what she was going for, unfortunately.


----------



## Entropic

zinnia said:


> Honestly, I personally don't have a problem with snakes. But... well, stories about the devil taking the form of a snake were shoved down my throat since I was 3. So to me, it isn't a coincidence JK Rowling chose this particular symbol. That, and you know, there's only about one or two "non-evil" characters from that house in the entire series. LOL. Unchecked ambition can be a problem but only one or two people escape that tendency out of an entire house? Are you kidding? X_X
> 
> What's even weirder about it is that it isn't ambition or leadership any of them are showing... but actually just following some shiny, manipulative revolutionary without really showing much independent thought. Not really what I would expect from ambition and cunning and blah blah; they actually just seem like a bunch of mindless thugs.
> 
> 
> 
> I realized how I threw in so many personal biases in that one post. I imagine cunning as constant scheming, very much negative, not quite the same as foreseeing or planning, or even manipulating. Like, the image of someone with a mischievous grin, chuckling, "hee hee hee" is what I think of. As for ambition, power and envy: I've always been pretty ambitious, enjoying challenges and I've always succeeded at most things easily... so I can't relate to that envy. But it does make sense. I can imagine how people around me hated it, because it was like I was better than them or whatever... like being a threat.
> 
> Yeah, I agree with the latter part of your post. I am aware this isn't the case in all societies - China (?) views the snake as wisdom etc - but I don't think that's what she was going for, unfortunately.


Honestly, I am not sure she thought much at all more than "what's fitting". I think if it's deeper symbolism she was going for she would likely have picked something a bit more thought out than archetypal Christian symbols.


----------



## Word Dispenser

ephemereality said:


> I see what you mean but I don't see a problem with it, actually. I don't see how being cunning is a negative trait. I see it as very positive for some reason. Cunning suggests something of supernatural character, an ability to read beyond the current situation, to read into the future, to predict and manipulate events into something more desirable. Between cunning and wise, I'd describe myself as cunning, easily.
> 
> And I guess the reason why people often conceive ambition negatively is because people who succeed gain power over those who do not. Success is something to be envied, but envy means admitting that one is actually in an inferior position and I think most people have too much ego to do that, so instead they choose to belittle because it places them in a position above the people they envy. It's just an easier way of dealing with the situation.
> 
> As for the snake itself - I think the problem with the snake as a symbol in Western spirituality stems from the fact that Eve was tricked by a snake. As to why that is I am not sure, likely has to do with local traditions where the idea emerged from, but I guess it could relate to the fact that many snakes blend well into their environment and/or because someone had issues with some local cult worshiping snakes.
> 
> If I have to pick some animal to represent me, I wouldn't pick a snake, but as Word Dispenser points out, I think there are also many positive depictions of the snake. Health is represented by the snake, so is infinity. Granted, I think there are Christian allusions or undertones in Harry Potter, at least if one merely looks at the symbolism chosen, and because it's set in a Western context I could say that it's a more likely interpretation but it doesn't have to be the only one.


Well, when I think 'cunning', I think of the Ferengi from Star Trek, lol. But, that's a pretty bare bones meaning of the word.

It's deceiving, lying, trying to trick people. Goblins are cunning. :tongue: It's normally coupled with more fanciful words to make the meaning seem better than it is, such as 'clever', 'sly', 'shrewd'... But, I suppose it _does _come with a slight positive connotation-- It marks someone with a quick mind, despite questionable motivations. 

Also, another great symbol of the snake in other cultures is the Kundalini. Spiritual power and salvation in yoga, or some such.


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> Well, when I think 'cunning', I think of the Ferengi from Star Trek, lol. But, that's a pretty bare bones meaning of the word.
> 
> It's deceiving, lying, trying to trick people. Goblins are cunning. :tongue: It's normally coupled with more fanciful words to make the meaning seem better than it is, such as 'clever', 'sly', 'shrewd'... But, I suppose it _does _come with a slight positive connotation-- It marks someone with a quick mind, despite questionable motivations.
> 
> Also, another great symbol of the snake in other cultures is the Kundalini. Spiritual power and salvation in yoga, or some such.


The funny thing is, "shrewd" is something I'd see as negative because I see that as lacking integrity of character.


----------



## Word Dispenser

ephemereality said:


> The funny thing is, "shrewd" is something I'd see as negative because I see that as lacking integrity of character.


I remember when I saw it that way too, but changed my mind. I'd say it's questionable, at least, but it's much more positive than, 'cunning'. Just my impression though.

But, I'm a big fan of cunning, sly, shrewd characters anyway. Like Silk from the Belgariad.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Cunning does have some negative connotations, but to be honest, if someone did call me cunning I wouldn't take it as an insult. At least they didn't call me stupid, haha.

Uhm... yeah. >_>

And yes, cunning characters can be fun.


----------



## vosquoque

ephemereality said:


> I just figured out a famous philosopher fitting (ooh the alliteration) gamma quadra: Sören Kierkegaard (too lazy to copy paste Danish ö ok?).
> _I see it all perfectly; there are two possible situations - one can either do this or that. My honest opinion and my friendly advice is this: do it or do not do it - you will regret both.
> 
> People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
> 
> The function of prayer is not to influence God, but rather to change the nature of the one who prays.
> 
> The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins._​


Søren is IEI. Heraclitus is a better example for a Gamma philosopher. Most other philosophers are, however, Alpha NTs with some Betas mixed in.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Scelerat said:


> If you buy the concept of reciprocal altruism as explained by Richard Dawkins that pretty much consolidates the two.


Then can't we throw force under self-interest too? 



Scelerat said:


> Not sure if this is sarcasm or not, so I'll let it slide for now.


Not sarcasm.



Scelerat said:


> Fear is not a synonym for force, funny how an INTP gets definitions wrong.


What the fuck does that have to do with anything I just said? Could you please address what I'm saying or maybe elaborate a little? 

If you mean what I think you might:

You're not directly forced to pay taxes. Some mail is sent to you and you know that if you ignore it, similar warnings will come, and then eventually police officers will show up at your house and you'll go to a court where you'll be found guilty and put in a prison with violent people. And if you resist the police, you might be struck, tazed, or shot and possibly die. So yes, it is indeed force and not fear, which aren't mutually exclusive. Fear is why force works.


----------



## Scelerat

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Then can't we throw force under self-interest too?
> 
> You can throw force along with a host of other things under self-interest, but it still doesn't include everything under self-interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck does that have to do with anything I just said? Could you please address what I'm saying or maybe elaborate a little?
> 
> If you mean what I think you might:
> 
> You're not directly forced to pay taxes. Some mail is sent to you and you know that if you ignore it, similar warnings will come, and then eventually police officers will show up at your house and you'll go to a court where you'll be found guilty and put in a prison with violent people. And if you resist the police, you might be struck, tazed, or shot and possibly die. So yes, it is indeed force and not fear, which aren't mutually exclusive. Fear is why force works.
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean is that your entire counter argument rests on treating force as a synonym for fear, and while it may be on some occasions, they are not direct synonyms and thus it becomes more like a straw man than an argument.
Click to expand...


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Scelerat said:


> ThatOneWeirdGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then can't we throw force under self-interest too?
> 
> You can throw force along with a host of other things under self-interest, but it still doesn't include everything under self-interest.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't it, according to you and our favorite despotic French cynic?
> 
> 
> 
> Scelerat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThatOneWeirdGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean is that your entire counter argument rests on treating force as a synonym for fear, and while it may be on some occasions, they are not direct synonyms and thus it becomes more like a straw man than an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But my entire counter-argument doesn't. I just said myself that fear and force are not synonymous and how they are related. Care to explain?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Scelerat

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Scelerat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't it, according to you and our favorite despotic French cynic?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your logic is fallacious. Sure, man is only moved by fear or self-interest, but that still makes force at best a sub-section of both, not all-encompassing. You can have self-interest without force and fear without force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scelerat said:
> 
> 
> 
> But my entire counter-argument doesn't. I just said myself that fear and force are not synonymous and how they are related. Care to explain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we look at what you wrote:
> 
> "I am a human. All humans are only motivated by force or self-interest. Therefore, all things I do are motivated by force or self-interest. I want to be as rational as possible in some areas of my life, so that must be motivated by force or self-interest. But, rationality can't be forced nor happen out of self-interest.
> 
> So how did I get to be how I am today?
> 
> People can, do, and will want to be critical thinkers and value truth, or at least not be fucking crazy. We're not all mindless apes who need to be controlled by an all powerful and omniscient state that is paradoxically made up of other mindless apes. Forcing ideologies out won't do much. New ones will spring up, not to mention forcing ideologies out maintains a couple destructive ones in and of itself. Voluntary reasoning and critical thinking will."
> 
> Per my own argument, rationality cannot be forced (by legislation) however, that it does not follow that it cannot happen out of self-interest. Humans can be rational if it is in their self-interest, but it requires them to recognize what is indeed their self-interest and I think that modern politics proves that a majority of humans are unable to do just that.
Click to expand...


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Scelerat said:


> ThatOneWeirdGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, your logic is fallacious. Sure, man is only moved by fear or self-interest, but that still makes force at best a sub-section of both, not all-encompassing. You can have self-interest without force and fear without force.
> 
> 
> 
> What? You just started talking about fear recently.
> 
> 
> 
> Scelerat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThatOneWeirdGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Per my own argument, rationality cannot be forced (by legislation) however, that it does not follow that it cannot happen out of self-interest. Humans can be rational if it is in their self-interest, but it requires them to recognize what is indeed their self-interest and I think that modern politics proves that a majority of humans are unable to do just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You earlier said that rationality _cannot _happen out of self-interest. I never said that rationality not being able to come out of force follows that it can't happen out of self-interest. I was merely going on the assumptions you laid out.
> 
> Okay, so people can be rational out of self-interest? That's a start.
> 
> Why do you think the vast majority of humans are _unable_ to do that? Why are they unable?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## vosquoque

It is unreasonable to attribute all human motivation to a mechanical, statistical self-interest. People do not just act because the action will give them more wealth, but because they find it nice and good to do.


----------



## Kanerou

zinnia said:


> Ughhhhhhhhh
> 
> I mean, okay, I get how you should smile and be pleasant but there comes a point where you really just need to say "get the fuck over yourself" when a customer screams at you and threatens to get you fired because you can't give them a refund on a $3 item. <_<
> 
> Or "what do you mean you don't carry this?! THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!!" ... right, because some minimum wage customer service rep has control over what a huge chain store carries...
> 
> the stupidity, the rudeness, it hurts


As someone who's worked at a call center, you learn to stay polite and to bitch in safe company, which does not include the customer (obviously). Sure, that can grate, but if the alternative is having no money, no food, and no roof over your head, you learn to get over your impulses and do what's necessary.


----------



## Entropic

@Scelerat I am curious how you define "rationality". You seem to think it opposes irrationality (well duh), but what does it mean to be rational vs irrational aside the fact that irrationality results in ideologies and things you alluded to being "irrational behavior/thinking", very loosely paraphrasing? Also, as a second question, how do you define and understand "ideology" aside that it is of irrational nature?


----------



## Entropic

vosquoque said:


> It is unreasonable to attribute all human motivation to a mechanical, statistical self-interest. People do not just act because the action will give them more wealth, but because they find it nice and good to do.


I do think all people act out of a sense of self-interest (yes, I know that assuming altruism doesn't exist leads to a circular argument, but I am willing to ignore that because altruism still doesn't make sense if it's not motivated out of self-interest to me), but self-interest mustn't itself lead to actions of solely involving the self. Doing good can be a form of self-interest if we operate on the assumption that self-interest is broadly defined as something we find makes us feel or or benefits us in some way.


----------



## Scelerat

ephemereality said:


> @_Scelerat_ I am curious how you define "rationality". You seem to think it opposes irrationality (well duh), but what does it mean to be rational vs irrational aside the fact that irrationality results in ideologies and things you alluded to being "irrational behavior/thinking", very loosely paraphrasing? Also, as a second question, how do you define and understand "ideology" aside that it is of irrational nature?


Rational - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I don't think ideology has to be irrational, I just happen to think that ideologies frequently appeal to the irrational because they tend to present views that require the exclusion of all other views.


----------



## Entropic

Scelerat said:


> Rational - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> I don't think ideology has to be irrational, I just happen to think that ideologies frequently appeal to the irrational because they tend to present views that require the exclusion of all other views.


And rationality does not?


----------



## Scelerat

ephemereality said:


> And rationality does not?


No, rationality has an evidence portion and if there is clear-cut evidence, then the case is settled.


----------



## Entropic

Scelerat said:


> No, rationality has an evidence portion and if there is clear-cut evidence, then the case is settled.


But does that not implicate that it also excludes other forms of views that do not fit the idea of rationality itself, or what rationality deems as rational?


----------



## Scelerat

ephemereality said:


> But does that not implicate that it also excludes other forms of views that do not fit the idea of rationality itself, or what rationality deems as rational?


That's the point. If it's not rational, it's not actual.


----------



## Entropic

Scelerat said:


> That's the point. If it's not rational, it's not actual.


But the perceptive of actual is still limited to the perception of what is rational, hence, it may not necessarily be an objective standard.


----------



## Entropic

doublepost


----------



## Scelerat

ephemereality said:


> But the perceptive of actual is still limited to the perception of what is rational, hence, it may not necessarily be an objective standard.


It's a bit like homosexuality, it may be an ok life choice for some people, but it's not my life choice. Facts are always an objective standard.


----------



## Entropic

Scelerat said:


> It's a bit like homosexuality, it may be cool for other people but not for me. Facts are always an objective standard.


But dealing with facts do not mean you are by default a rational person as in, you are capable of rational thought. It simply means you are capable of dealing with facts. How those facts are used by your mind may fall both within the realms of rationality-irrationality, as you defined it here.


----------



## Scelerat

ephemereality said:


> But dealing with facts do not mean you are by default a rational person as in, you are capable of rational thought. It simply means you are capable of dealing with facts. How those facts are used by your mind may fall both within the realms of rationality-irrationality, as you defined it here.


It's just the dictionary definition, if you have issues with it I suggest you deal with the people who write the dictionary, not me.


----------



## Entropic

Scelerat said:


> It's just the dictionary definition, if you have issues with it I suggest you deal with the people who write the dictionary, not me.


You support it as a way of understanding your worldview, so I assume that would include you? I don't have issues with the dictionary definition, but I am trying to understand why you reason the way you do.


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> This is why I strongly think my huz is Gamma. roud:
> 
> I don't think you're too aggressive, harsh, or blunt._ Far _from it. Argumentative, though, definitely. Clearly rational and a clear need to have your point of view shared.


People definitely share different thresholds when it comes to that, though. 



> A tendency to judge others based upon their type, quite possibly. Though, this last tendency has mellowed out somewhat, and I'm not sure if I have pinpointed this correctly. But, you have allowed distaste for certain functions to interfere with your sensibility, at times.


Explain? 



> Sometimes, you seem quite narrow in scope, though. But, that's just Ni, innit? A tendency to choose one way, to the exclusion of other possibilities.
> I can tell you're a softy, under what might seem to others 'the cool exterior'. :tongue:
> 
> I mean, your anime-inclination is the epitomy of the soft, squishy, visceral innards beneath the hard exterior shell. Your clear connection to Fi and emotions, is on display, perhaps even dramatically, if people aren't ignoring it.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few individuals were quite willfully blind in this respect... But, it's more likely that it's because it's not appealing to others-- It's your own space, it's not set up to make others feel welcome. Hence: Aggressive, harsh, blunt, etc.


A lot of people miss out on this aspect, yes. I think I had an ESE or SEI childhood friend that I broke up with because of what I perceived to be personal differences like different interests etc (also, she was clingy as fuck) and I told her why I thought we didn't work out as friends in a rational way that is, different interests, different goals in life etc, and she got super-upset even though we weren't even that close and eventually told me I'm emotionally cold for not seemingly to care about her current emotional state. I was honestly surprised that she reacted in such a way at all because I thought the experience was mutually shared. 

This seems to be the oddest aspect of the conflictor relationship of ILI-ESE, in that the ESE quite often, wants to bridge the emotional gap towards the ILI, to get more intimate and close with them, in a sense that is highly uncomfortable to the ILI because it's based on Fe rather than Fi. It's the same thing with my grandmother like it is with that childhood friend. They are for the lack of better words, just down-right clingy. They want you but not so much as a person as much as they simply share some odd external bond with you that they want to continue to maintain for the sake of maintaining it because that's what Fe does. So you are just this odd anomaly of their Fe seeking to create perfect emotional harmony around them and must be made to fit this system too, to fit, but the problem is that you don't want to be a part of this perfect system they've crafted in their minds. You want to be seen for you who are. Hence part of the push-pull mechanic of the conflictor relationship also.

I want to clarify that in the ESE, possibly also the EIE, sometimes they get more caught up in organizing their social space in this manner as in, who belongs where and what relationship do they share? over actually maintaining the relationship itself. Not sure how to put it, but for example, my previously mentioned childhood friend spent no time with me at all almost on her own accord, yet I still had to be around and exist in her world so to speak. Same with my grandmother too. She wants me to exist in her world but she's not necessarily paying me attention in the way I seek to be paid attention to. She's purposefully told me to get rid of my cats so I can see her more often or move closer to her. It's a very selfish thing that's motivated her in this regard. It's more like they are concerned to manipulate some external bond or connection than they are internal value. That's the best way I can put it. How you personally feel about the person is less relevant compared to the externalization of the relationship and the nature it takes.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

ephemereality said:


> This seems to be the oddest aspect of the conflictor relationship of ILI-ESE, in that *the ESE quite often, wants to bridge the emotional gap towards the ILI, to get more intimate and close with them, in a sense that is highly uncomfortable to the ILI because it's based on Fe rather than Fi.* It's the same thing with my grandmother like it is with that childhood friend. They are for the lack of better words, just down-right clingy.* They want you but not so much as a person as much as they simply share some odd external bond with you that they want to continue to maintain for the sake of maintaining it because that's what Fe does. So you are just this odd anomaly of their Fe seeking to create perfect emotional harmony around them and must be made to fit this system too, to fit, but the problem is that you don't want to be a part of this perfect system they've crafted in their minds. You want to be seen for you who are. Hence part of the push-pull mechanic of the conflictor relationship also.*
> 
> I want to clarify that in the ESE, possibly also the EIE, sometimes they get more caught up in organizing their social space in this manner as in, *who belongs where and what relationship do they share? over actually maintaining the relationship itself.* Not sure how to put it, but for example, my previously mentioned childhood friend spent no time with me at all almost on her own accord, yet I still had to be around and exist in her world so to speak. Same with my grandmother too. She wants me to exist in her world but she's not necessarily paying me attention in the way I seek to be paid attention to. She's purposefully told me to get rid of my cats so I can see her more often or move closer to her. It's a very selfish thing that's motivated her in this regard.* It's more like they are concerned to manipulate some external bond or connection than they are internal value. *That's the best way I can put it. *How you personally feel about the person is less relevant compared to the externalization of the relationship and the nature it takes.*


The bolded parts sum up my relationship with my ESE aunt. I know that she get's angry when I reject her invitations for going to the beach or other places that I find boring, and I get annoyed because she never understands my arguments for not going to some borefest. The irony is how much she insists to see me, even if I notice that's something fake, as it's clear that she doesn't like me at all, so your last statement explains that contradictory attitude quite well.


----------



## Word Dispenser

ephemereality said:


> Explain?


Do I _have _to? :tongue:

Just take it as the least offensive interpretation. Or... I can try to explain, if you'd like. What would you like explained about it? I'd rather not try to find examples of these instances; these are just things I've observed.



> A lot of people miss out on this aspect, yes. I think I had an ESE or SEI childhood friend that I broke up with because of what I perceived to be personal differences like different interests etc (also, she was clingy as fuck) and I told her why I thought we didn't work out as friends in a rational way that is, different interests, different goals in life etc, and she got super-upset even though we weren't even that close and eventually told me I'm emotionally cold for not seemingly to care about her current emotional state. I was honestly surprised that she reacted in such a way at all because I thought the experience was mutually shared.


Hm... Well, I understand her viewpoint-- For Alphas, I think (And I'm only saying this because I assume I'm an Alpha), more than any, they may interact less with those they don't get along with well, but they will still view them as friends. Cutting off from someone completely, and verbally (as opposed to letting the relationship just drift apart naturally) is almost unheard of, and an extremely uncomfortable thing to do. 

If she were to do such towards you, it would be because of a perceived detriment to both. 'Working' as friends, for Alphas, only requires that neither party is being made worse for the encounter, being dragged down negatively, etc.

I wouldn't have worded it as being cold, though.



> This seems to be the oddest aspect of the conflictor relationship of ILI-ESE, in that the ESE quite often, wants to bridge the emotional gap towards the ILI, to get more intimate and close with them, in a sense that is highly uncomfortable to the ILI because it's based on Fe rather than Fi. It's the same thing with my grandmother like it is with that childhood friend. They are for the lack of better words, just down-right clingy.
> 
> They want you but not so much as a person as much as they simply share some odd external bond with you that they want to continue to maintain for the sake of maintaining it because that's what Fe does. So you are just this odd anomaly of their Fe seeking to create perfect emotional harmony around them and must be made to fit this system too, to fit, but the problem is that you don't want to be a part of this perfect system they've crafted in their minds. You want to be seen for you who are. Hence part of the push-pull mechanic of the conflictor relationship also.


The clinginess I understand when we're talking about ESE and SEI-- This is fairly stereotypical behaviour, maybe, and I could even say that I could have a fancy of this tendency, fluttering beneath the surface tendencies. I don't relate so much to the idea of getting closer-- For me, it is as it is, and there's no need to, or no regard to seeing it 'develop' into a 'closerness' of platonic relationship. The relationship is established: Let's do friend-things. 

Maybe this is due to Static dichotomy.



> I want to clarify that in the ESE, possibly also the EIE, sometimes they get more caught up in organizing their social space in this manner as in, who belongs where and what relationship do they share? over actually maintaining the relationship itself. Not sure how to put it, but for example, my *previously mentioned childhood friend spent no time with me at all almost on her own accord, yet I still had to be around and exist in her world so to speak.* Same with my grandmother too. *She wants me to exist in her world but she's not necessarily paying me attention in the way I seek to be paid attention to.* She's purposefully told me to get rid of my cats so I can see her more often or move closer to her. It's a very selfish thing that's motivated her in this regard. It's more like they are concerned to manipulate some external bond or connection than they are internal value. That's the best way I can put it. How you personally feel about the person is less relevant compared to the externalization of the relationship and the nature it takes.


Lol, I might never see the person in 10 years, but I would still walk up to them on the street and consider them my friend. Yes. 

The only way that breaks this regard is if, as you did, you broke it verbally. This could be viewed as a betrayal, in a way. Not to me, as I've been forced to make certain concessions, if grudgingly. 

In my instance, though, I would only face them verbally with my decision if there was a finality to it-- ie 'I am definitely not going to see you again, as friends, or anything.'

My huz could not understand why I want to maintain connection, and continued communication with certain family members, when he perceived them as being non-reciprocating.

For me, this doesn't matter. For him, this is everything. If they do not reciprocate, they do not care, period. For me, if I send out something, and they send something back, that's enough. Even if I'm the initiator every single time. My only discomfort is in awareness of being seen as clingy, or being bothersome to the recipient, and I hope that they, as I would, would be straightforward in this regard. 

I don't like it when intentions are not put forth outright-- Alpha anyone? But, that's contradicting as well, since... It's uncomfortable to be cut off verbally from someone, and this is an outright decision. I suppose I could say that... I don't mind being cut off, but I wouldn't want to be the one to cut someone off, unless it was a last resort.


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> Do I _have _to? :tongue:
> 
> Just take it as the least offensive interpretation. Or... I can try to explain, if you'd like. What would you like explained about it? I'd rather not try to find examples of these instances; these are just things I've observed.


I asked because I was seeking a frank answer, quite simply. I can take truths, it doesn't need to be minced. 



> Hm... Well, I understand her viewpoint-- For Alphas, I think (And I'm only saying this because I assume I'm an Alpha), more than any, they may interact less with those they don't get along with well, but they will still view them as friends. Cutting off from someone completely, and verbally (as opposed to letting the relationship just drift apart naturally) is almost unheard of, and an extremely uncomfortable thing to do.
> 
> If she were to do such towards you, it would be because of a perceived detriment to both. 'Working' as friends, for Alphas, only requires that neither party is being made worse for the encounter, being dragged down negatively, etc.
> 
> I wouldn't have worded it as being cold, though.
> 
> The clinginess I understand when we're talking about ESE and SEI-- This is fairly stereotypical behaviour, maybe, and I could even say that I could have a fancy of this tendency, fluttering beneath the surface tendencies. I don't relate so much to the idea of getting closer-- For me, it is as it is, and there's no need to, or no regard to seeing it 'develop' into a 'closerness' of platonic relationship. The relationship is established: Let's do friend-things.
> 
> Maybe this is due to Static dichotomy.
> 
> Lol, I might never see the person in 10 years, but I would still walk up to them on the street and consider them my friend. Yes.
> 
> The only way that breaks this regard is if, as you did, you broke it verbally. This could be viewed as a betrayal, in a way. Not to me, as I've been forced to make certain concessions, if grudgingly.
> 
> In my instance, though, I would only face them verbally with my decision if there was a finality to it-- ie 'I am definitely not going to see you again, as friends, or anything.'
> 
> My huz could not understand why I want to maintain connection, and continued communication with certain family members, when he perceived them as being non-reciprocating.
> 
> For me, this doesn't matter. For him, this is everything. If they do not reciprocate, they do not care, period. For me, if I send out something, and they send something back, that's enough. Even if I'm the initiator every single time. My only discomfort is in awareness of being seen as clingy, or being bothersome to the recipient, and I hope that they, as I would, would be straightforward in this regard.
> 
> I don't like it when intentions are not put forth outright-- Alpha anyone? But, that's contradicting as well, since... It's uncomfortable to be cut off verbally from someone, and this is an outright decision. I suppose I could say that... I don't mind being cut off, but I wouldn't want to be the one to cut someone off, unless it was a last resort.


Yeah I don't understand this kind of logic at all. I have had people whom I haven't spoken to since grade school add me on FB without even saying hi first for example. I immediately removed their friend requests. If you want to be friends and we haven't spoken don't assume the bond is still there because it's not. Relationships need to be maintained and effort need to be put into it that shows some kind of value in return. 

I notice this difference a lot between quadras and family members also when it comes to transgender issues, as I'm involved in a couple of groups where most people are TS. Every once in a while there's an individual who complains about their family members shutting them out and discriminating them because of them being trans and clearly doesn't respect or show much concern towards them as human beings and my immediate response to that always is to just cut them off. I don't think that's unique to gamma btw, but I think betas do this too, as this harsher treatment is likely more associated with Se than Fi. But some individuals, mostly alphas I think, can't do this. They just keep clinging to this family bond etc and it's mind-boggling to me, especially when their family is clearly hurting them and is not a positive force in their lives. What do you do with bad things? You get rid of it, obviously. Family members or not. Blood ties are superficial and certainly don't need to be maintained. It's like they can't make that decision where they just cut the ties even though it's so damn simple in my mind. It doesn't take a lot of effort - just a good bye and that's it.


----------



## Word Dispenser

ephemereality said:


> I asked because I was seeking a frank answer, quite simply. I can take truths, it doesn't need to be minced.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I don't understand this kind of logic at all. I have had people whom I haven't spoken to since grade school add me on FB without even saying hi first for example. I immediately removed their friend requests. If you want to be friends and we haven't spoken don't assume the bond is still there because it's not. Relationships need to be maintained and effort need to be put into it that shows some kind of value in return.
> 
> I notice this difference a lot between quadras and family members also when it comes to transgender issues, as I'm involved in a couple of groups where most people are TS. Every once in a while there's an individual who complains about their family members shutting them out and discriminating them because of them being trans and clearly doesn't respect or show much concern towards them as human beings and my immediate response to that always is to just cut them off. I don't think that's unique to gamma btw, but I think betas do this too, as this harsher treatment is likely more associated with Se than Fi. But some individuals, mostly alphas I think, can't do this. They just keep clinging to this family bond etc and it's mind-boggling to me, especially when their family is clearly hurting them and is not a positive force in their lives. What do you do with bad things? You get rid of it, obviously. Family members or not. Blood ties are superficial and certainly don't need to be maintained. It's like they can't make that decision where they just cut the ties even though it's so damn simple in my mind. It doesn't take a lot of effort - just a good bye and that's it.


This is the logic that my huz has-- And I have learned to bend, because in theory, to me, it's sound. But it's _painful _in practice. It's just... Not logical, but I can't help myself. In the end, though, cutting off is just something that's healthier for both people, or even just me, even if it's hard.

I think that if it were concerning TS issues though, or something similar, this would be the 'last resort' I'm talking about. I'd cut someone off if I thought they were being unreasonably negative stereotyping, and discriminating. In an obvious, directly and disgustingly insulting, offensive way. Or even if it weren't that obvious, and I _knew. _

That said, I have even joined in on making fun of this new trend of the effeminate male, because it seems as if they are taking on a role, and this can be made with jokes, tongue-in-cheek. 

I'm a strong advocate in people's rights-- Gay, lesbian, tran-, gender. Yet, there is that other side-- Perhaps shameful in some circles, although I think everyone should be able to make light of themselves. I do. :tongue: Firmly positioned on the thought that: 'If you dish it out, you better be able to take it.'

I know for a fact that my dad thinks the feminine male is funny. This is something we've bonded over in the past. (Not so much anymore, now that I'm living in another country.) ... But, I also know that he doesn't really think it's any of his business, and it's a person's choice.

I think if I were to come out as a lesbian, he'd probably be uncomfortable with the idea, and not want to talk about it. Maybe he'd even make light of this to others-- Or maybe it would be a source of shame for him. I don't know. It's even just as likely that he'd treat it as being normal, as best as he can, maybe even think of it as a 'phase'.

It's really, really hard if it's family, or someone you used to be as close to as family, in my opinion. There are obviously layers of knowing what it used to be-- Good memories, wanting to strive to bring that back into the fold. Seeing that it could always change, it could get better. Someday they will see. I wouldn't make this kind of decision without a great deal of processing and thought. But, my concern would probably be focused more on the other person and how they would take it, rather than myself.

As for an honest answer: When you first thought I was ESE, you seemed hostile of a perceived over-developed Fe-- Something like, 'Argh, it sickens me!' 
As you gradually accepted ILE, you became more neutral in text-manner. :wink: 

It's not isolated to this example, either, but this is what comes to mind, since I went through it.


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> This is the logic that my huz has-- And I have learned to bend, because in theory, to me, it's sound. But it's _painful _in practice. It's just... Not logical, but I can't help myself. In the end, though, cutting off is just something that's healthier for both people, or even just me, even if it's hard.
> 
> I think that if it were concerning TS issues though, or something similar, this would be the 'last resort' I'm talking about. I'd cut someone off if I thought they were being unreasonably negative stereotyping, and discriminating. In an obvious, directly and disgustingly insulting, offensive way. Or even if it weren't that obvious, and I _knew. _
> 
> That said, I have even joined in on making fun of this new trend of the effeminate male, because it seems as if they are taking on a role, and this can be made with jokes, tongue-in-cheek.
> 
> I'm a strong advocate in people's rights-- Gay, lesbian, tran-, gender. Yet, there is that other side-- Perhaps shameful in some circles, although I think everyone should be able to make light of themselves. I do. :tongue: Firmly positioned on the thought that: 'If you dish it out, you better be able to take it.'
> 
> I know for a fact that my dad thinks the feminine male is funny. This is something we've bonded over in the past. (Not so much anymore, now that I'm living in another country.) ... But, I also know that he doesn't really think it's any of his business, and it's a person's choice.
> 
> I think if I were to come out as a lesbian, he'd probably be uncomfortable with the idea, and not want to talk about it. Maybe he'd even make light of this to others-- Or maybe it would be a source of shame for him. I don't know. It's even just as likely that he'd treat it as being normal, as best as he can, maybe even think of it as a 'phase'.
> 
> It's really, really hard if it's family, or someone you used to be as close to as family, in my opinion. There are obviously layers of knowing what it used to be-- Good memories, wanting to strive to bring that back into the fold. Seeing that it could always change, it could get better. Someday they will see. I wouldn't make this kind of decision without a great deal of processing and thought. But, my concern would probably be focused more on the other person and how they would take it, rather than myself.
> 
> As for an honest answer: When you first thought I was ESE, you seemed hostile of a perceived over-developed Fe-- Something like, 'Argh, it sickens me!'
> As you gradually accepted ILE, you became more neutral in text-manner. :wink:
> 
> It's not isolated to this example, either, but this is what comes to mind, since I went through it.


I think you Fe less now, or perhaps, my perception of your Fe lessened. It's still very much there though but it's manageable? I suppose.


----------



## Word Dispenser

ephemereality said:


> I think you Fe less now, or perhaps, my perception of your Fe lessened. It's still very much there though but it's manageable? I suppose.


Yes. I know.

But, to illustrate: Perception of the cognitive function in question _seemed_ to have messed with your sensibility. You were reduced to 'Argh, Fe!'

What would you have said, before you had been entrenched in Socionics and similar typology, in a context where you're in a position to judge someone critically? What would 'Fe' be called in such an instance? Or, perhaps there wouldn't have been a need for a reduction at all.

Fe, in the way you described it, during those instances of almost rant-like proportions (At least in regards to yourself, as opposed to other individuals, whose rant threshold is much lower...? Seems much lower anyway.), was almost nameless in its permeation of my prose.

This is why I say that it messed with you a bit. If you didn't perceive it as being what you envision it to be, it might not have.

But, as also said: You've become more distanced from allowing these perceptions to mess with you. Hence 'mellowed out a bit'. I used to see it soaking your own prose, though.

Again, though: Not aggressive. roud: People may have different degrees of tolerance to certain tendencies, but I'd say that if they took you as being cold, aggressive, etc., it would be due to misunderstanding, rather than actually understanding, what you're trying to say.


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> Yes. I know.
> 
> But, to illustrate: Perception of the cognitive function in question _seemed_ to have messed with your sensibility. You were reduced to 'Argh, Fe!'
> 
> What would you have said, before you had been entrenched in Socionics and similar typology, in a context where you're in a position to judge someone critically? What would 'Fe' be called in such an instance? Or, perhaps there wouldn't have been a need for a reduction at all.
> 
> Fe, in the way you described it, during those instances of almost rant-like proportions (At least in regards to yourself, as opposed to other individuals, whose rant threshold is much lower...? Seems much lower anyway.), was almost nameless in its permeation of my prose.
> 
> This is why I say that it messed with you a bit. If you didn't perceive it as being what you envision it to be, it might not have.
> 
> But, as also said: You've become more distanced from allowing these perceptions to mess with you. Hence 'mellowed out a bit'. I used to see it soaking your own prose, though.
> 
> Again, though: Not aggressive. roud: People may have different degrees of tolerance to certain tendencies, but I'd say that if they took you as being cold, aggressive, etc., it would be due to misunderstanding, rather than actually understanding, what you're trying to say.


Actually, no, I think you are incorrect about that assessment. There was an ESE at my job and even if I didn't know that person was an ESE my very impression of her was GTFO away from me! I am over-sensitive to Fe-expressed logos and behavior and socionics/MBTI gave it a name. That's about it. In a similar manner I had and still have an intense hatred towards the character Orihime from Bleach, another ESE, and again it's because she's expressing something I strongly dislike in terms of cognition. 

So to answer your question I would simply go, GO FUCKING DIE YOU ANNOYING PERSON. Internally, of course. There are still times when I think your cognition is slightly annoying because of Fe but I have perhaps, because of the distance over the internet at least (I might feel very different about you in person where I can note this behavior more viscerally) deal with it, to some degree.


----------



## Word Dispenser

ephemereality said:


> Actually, no, I think you are incorrect about that assessment. There was an ESE at my job and even if I didn't know that person was an ESE my very impression of her was GTFO away from me! I am over-sensitive to Fe-expressed logos and behavior and socionics/MBTI gave it a name. That's about it. In a similar manner I had and still have an intense hatred towards the character Orihime from Bleach, another ESE, and again it's because she's expressing something I strongly dislike in terms of cognition.
> 
> So to answer your question I would simply go, GO FUCKING DIE YOU ANNOYING PERSON. Internally, of course. There are still times when I think your cognition is slightly annoying because of Fe but I have perhaps, because of the distance over the internet at least (I might feel very different about you in person where I can note this behavior more viscerally) deal with it, to some degree.


O' yes, methinks you would wish to stab me, quite possibly. :kitteh:

Then again, being a bit more of a mirror than a reflection, I might adapt enough to be tolerable. Still, the constant inane joking would probably do it as well.

However, yes. I understood that it would still be something which is annoying, no matter what. 

But, because it's annoying for your cognition, there _was_ more of a tendency to over, or under exaggerate its presence in the cognition of a respective individual. 

You don't do this as much anymore, from what I've seen, taking a more relaxed approach. roud:


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> O' yes, methinks you would wish to stab me, quite possibly. :kitteh:
> 
> Then again, being a bit more of a mirror than a reflection, I might adapt enough to be tolerable. Still, the constant inane joking would probably do it as well.
> 
> However, yes. I understood that it would still be something which is annoying, no matter what.
> 
> But, because it's annoying for your cognition, there _was_ more of a tendency to over, or under exaggerate its presence in the cognition of a respective individual.
> 
> You don't do this as much anymore, from what I've seen, taking a more relaxed approach. roud:


I still over-react to it when I type people. I am well aware that I have a bias towards Fe in this regard. Also, I do wish perhaps you would try to stop flatten it over a bit and just take it as it is right here for example?


----------



## Word Dispenser

ephemereality said:


> I still over-react to it when I type people. I am well aware that I have a bias towards Fe in this regard. Also, I do wish perhaps you would try to stop flatten*ing* it over a bit and just take it as it is right here for example?


(Typo-grammar correction in green.)

What do you mean by this? Take it as it is, right here, for example? Flattening over which? roud: 

Do you mean that I'm being too diplomatic? I really do think that you've mellowed out, dude.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Word Dispenser said:


> For me, this doesn't matter. For him, this is everything. If they do not reciprocate, they do not care, period. For me, if I send out something, and they send something back, that's enough. Even if I'm the initiator every single time. My only discomfort is in awareness of being seen as clingy, or being bothersome to the recipient, and I hope that they, as I would, would be straightforward in this regard.


Hmm, I tend to be the same way, I would say. 

I have some other thoughts as well, but at the same time I'm feeling kind of  by this stuff. 



ephemereality said:


> Yeah I don't understand this kind of logic at all. I have had people whom I haven't spoken to since grade school add me on FB without even saying hi first for example. I immediately removed their friend requests. If you want to be friends and we haven't spoken don't assume the bond is still there because it's not. Relationships need to be maintained and effort need to be put into it that shows some kind of value in return.


I tend to accept the friend request in that case because it's a chance to get close to them perhaps (if I want to become close to them). Meh, I dunno. I don't take facebook that seriously anyway.


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> (Typo-grammar correction in green.)
> 
> What do you mean by this? Take it as it is, right here, for example? Flattening over which? roud:
> 
> Do you mean that I'm being too diplomatic? I really do think that you've mellowed out, dude.


Too diplomatic, too friendly, too err, "accepting" of something instead of just taking it for what it is.


----------



## Word Dispenser

ephemereality said:


> Too diplomatic, too friendly, too err, "accepting" of something instead of just taking it for what it is.


Isn't 'accepting it', taking it for what it is? :tongue:


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> Isn't 'accepting it', taking it for what it is? :tongue:


Not in this context. Here it's more of a forced form of acceptance in the need to remain friendly.


----------



## Word Dispenser

ephemereality said:


> Not in this context. Here it's more of a forced form of acceptance in the need to remain friendly.


I disagree. I said what I think-- And I jested betwixt. I'm not sugar-coating it. 

You obviously have a tendency to exaggerate (or underestimate) Fe. You might also exaggerate (or underestimate) cognition which _appeals.

_You've definitely mellowed out, though. It used to be like, 'Fe is here-- IT'S WAR.' Now you're like, 'Ugh, I'm not even going to bother putting the energy into this.'

I assume it's because you are, yourself, aware of it, as you've said. Or maybe just fed-up with Fe. roud:

It used to really grate on my brain-gears, when you'd get huffy about Fe in threads. It seemed as if you were typing everyone as ESE for awhile. :laughing:


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Word Dispenser said:


> It used to really grate on my brain-gears, when you'd get huffy about Fe in threads. It seemed as if you were typing everyone as ESE for awhile. :laughing:


I found that kind of amusing tbh.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Nonsense said:


> I found that kind of amusing tbh.


Oooh, now I'm curious. Why?


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Word Dispenser said:


> Oooh, now I'm curious. Why?


Idk, my humor's kind of silly I guess. It probably helps that almost no one wants to be ESFJ, so whenever he suggested that typing, I almost wondered if he was trolling.


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> I disagree. I said what I think-- And I jested betwixt. I'm not sugar-coating it.
> 
> You obviously have a tendency to exaggerate (or underestimate) Fe. You might also exaggerate (or underestimate) cognition which _appeals.
> 
> _You've definitely mellowed out, though. It used to be like, 'Fe is here-- IT'S WAR.' Now you're like, 'Ugh, I'm not even going to bother putting the energy into this.'
> 
> I assume it's because you are, yourself, aware of it, as you've said. Or maybe just fed-up with Fe. roud:
> 
> It used to really grate on my brain-gears, when you'd get huffy about Fe in threads. It seemed as if you were typing everyone as ESE for awhile. :laughing:


Still feels like sugar coating honest opinion or not.


----------



## Vermillion

Word Dispenser said:


> My clingy dual-seeking Si will take you with me.


I will _ignore_ your Si gloriously.



> *Gets into hug stance*
> 
> Let's explore the stars together! <3


Hm. Let's fight first and then explore the stars to relax. 

Also, we derailed hard. Is this the effect you alphas have? Making threads vapid and meaningless, like a plague. Psh.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Amaterasu said:


> I will _ignore_ your Si gloriously.
> 
> 
> 
> Hm. Let's fight first and then explore the stars to relax.
> 
> Also, we derailed hard. Is this the effect you alphas have? Making threads vapid and meaningless, like a plague. Psh.


We're like the comic reliefs of life. Like Gimli in the LOTR movies. Necessary, usually annoying, but sometimes... A rare breath of good-humour fresh air. :wink:


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> OKAY. FICTION IT IS!
> 
> Ahem...


Is this about you as in the narrator representing you or a part of you? If no, then it's useless.


----------



## Word Dispenser

ephemereality said:


> Is this about you as in the narrator representing you or a part of you?


Yep.


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> Yep.


Honestly, it didn't say much to me. It mostly seems like endless Ne diatribe but my overall impression was 9 with a touch of 4. I definitely did not saw the narcissist 7 outlook in it, personally. There was no real head energy present in it at all.


----------



## Word Dispenser

ephemereality said:


> Honestly, it didn't say much to me. It mostly seems like endless Ne diatribe but my overall impression was 9 with a touch of 4. I definitely did not saw the narcissist 7 outlook in it, personally. There was no real head energy present in it at all.


Yeah, my signature's a joke. 9 and 4 (Probably 4w5 over 4w3) sound right. Not sure about the head part of my tritype as of yet. I couldn't say 9w8 or 9w1 for my core fix... But, I'd always thought 9w8 until more recently, when someone said I was more of a 1. I'm thinking this has to do with the 9ish tendency to blend-bend, and my dearest is very, very dearly strong 1.

I thought 5w4 might be my head thing... 7 might sound right on the surface, but I think I do 7 things in a more 9 way. 6 seems out of the question of the three head types.


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> Yeah, my signature's a joke. 9 and 4 (Probably 4w5 over 4w3) sound right. Not sure about the head part of my tritype as of yet. I couldn't say 9w8 or 9w1 for my core fix... But, I'd always thought 9w8 until more recently, when someone said I was more of a 1. I'm thinking this has to do with the 9ish tendency to blend-bend, and my dearest is very, very dearly strong 1.
> 
> I thought 5w4 might be my head thing... 7 might sound right on the surface, but I think I do 7 things in a more 9 way. 6 seems out of the question of the three head types.


If you're not a 9, I would honestly investigate 6 even though you say you don't relate to it. 9w1 seems more likely over 9w8 also.


----------



## Word Dispenser

ephemereality said:


> If you're not a 9, I would honestly investigate 6 even though you say you don't relate to it. 9w1 seems more likely over 9w8 also.


Well, I'd not be ashamed of being a 6. I would be of being a 7 or a 5. I figure the one that hits the deepest is the one to look at. 6 just doesn't have any of my fears or indulgences. 

But, 9 was the one that really hit me hardest, when I decided to uncomfortably explore the unhealthy regions. The idea of 4 annoys me, but I concede, because it's true enough...

So. Yeah.


----------



## Figure

Word Dispenser said:


> But, 9 was the one that really hit me hardest, when I decided to uncomfortably explore the unhealthy regions. The idea of 4 annoys me, but I concede, because it's true enough...
> 
> So. Yeah.


This could be interesting, if you do end up deciding on 9. I actually typed as a 9 for awhile and had the same reaction you did, eventually determining that being as uncomfortable about 9 as I was had to speak to not being a 9 XD

My frustration was, yes, sometimes I am really, REALLY apathetic about things and would like to be more actionable than I am. What is it, exactly, that bugs you about 9? I ask because as an ILE you couldn't rule out 8 or 1 - I know ILE of both types, so it's possible as a wing too like it was for me.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Figure said:


> This could be interesting, if you do end up deciding on 9. I actually typed as a 9 for awhile and had the same reaction you did, eventually determining that being as uncomfortable about 9 as I was had to speak to not being a 9 XD
> 
> My frustration was, yes, sometimes I am really, REALLY apathetic about things and would like to be more actionable than I am. What is it, exactly, that bugs you about 9? I ask because as an ILE you couldn't rule out 8 or 1 - I know ILE of both types, so it's possible as a wing too like it was for me.


Took a recent test that pointed more towards 1, actually. I don't like how lazy 9 seems to be-- Gluttonous even. Kinda puts the picture in my mind of a fat, lazy, underachiever... Which is definitely a part of who I am.

8 is probably impossible, beyond a possible wing. My fiance says I'm quite dominant, though, when comfortable, which surprised me. Even aggressive. Now, I abhor aggression and anger, and I think that this is also why 9 fits-- I have a big anger problem, in that I don't face it. I push it down, and act as I might be if I were not under the influence of anger. I don't act out, or get vengeful, or silly, or thoughtless. Anger is the one thing I don't express healthfully. It _can _come out in passive aggressive ways, but more often than not, I take it on with sadness instead.

It's tricky, because 1 can be like this too, I think. But, my fiance is a major 1, and it really grates on me in a big way. Probably in that he's a 1w2, perhaps. 

I know it's a 1 stereotype, but I'm the farthest from perfectionist, both in action, thought, and feeling, that _this _aspect of 1, at least, couldn't be farther from the truth. Couldn't rule it out for a second, though. There are probably lots of flavours of 1.

I didn't think I was that dominant. Although, I think my family has said much the same, when I asked them if I was a submissive person. I don't know though, I think I'm moderately submissive and dominant as a person, but my independent nature can be mistaken for dominance as well. :kitteh:


----------



## Elyasis

ephemereality said:


> Honestly, it didn't say much to me. It mostly seems like endless Ne diatribe but my overall impression was 9 with a touch of 4. I definitely did not saw the narcissist 7 outlook in it, personally. There was no real head energy present in it at all.



I read it and thought: Could have said this in one short paragraph. Unneeded repetition. Dancing around the concept of self.


----------



## Entropic

'sup gammas. We can't let the beta thread be more active now, can we?


----------



## AST

Any Gammas care to explain Gamma Te, specifically in contrast to Beta Fe, as Ni's block buddies?


----------



## Word Dispenser

Elyasis said:


> I read it and thought: Could have said this in one short paragraph. Unneeded repetition. Dancing around the concept of self.


Interesting observation. 

I like it. Thank you.


----------



## Entropic

AST said:


> Any Gammas care to explain Gamma Te, specifically in contrast to Beta Fe, as Ni's block buddies?


Wild LSI appears!

Gamma Te is theoretical Te. It stakes out possible future plans, ideals, dreams and goals. It organizes around theoretical content. The easiest way to understand the difference between gamma Te and delta Te is to observe an LIE and LSE in a management position. The LIE will organize a company around an ideal of what's the most efficient like say, maximizing production value. They can see the theoretical flow of production input and output and how to manipulate that like if we put this amount of resources into the system we get this amount back. An LSE is better at understanding and organizing at a micro-level like if we put this person who we know has done this a lot before in the past at this particular position, the quality will be better than if we let someone else do it. Of course that's also just partially Te in itself working that way, but I find that LSEs usually look more to the past and stick to that by keep refining a specific method rather than trying an entirely new method.

I find that the difference between gamma and beta Je is just the difference between ethics and logic in general. Gamma organizes around theoretical systems and theories based on what's efficient and yields the best logical results, but beta organizes around theoretical ideals and ethical outcomes. 

So if we take an LIE and an EIE in the same management position in a company, an LIE would organize around theoretical impersonal structures concerning what's effective and fair to everyone. Law systems for example, if looking at it from a more social perspective. An EIE thinks in terms of values and collective ideals, not rules and procedures. You see that in this video for example:


----------



## Dragheart Luard

ephemereality said:


> 'sup gammas. We can't let the beta thread be more active now, can we?


Yeah, just that I don't promise that I would help to do that for a while, as I'm starting to get buried under work (thanks quantum mechanics and other chem stuff). Indeed the next two weeks will be so damn beautiful with all the tests, homework and other BS that I have to do.


----------



## Entropic

Blue Flare said:


> Yeah, just that I don't promise that I would help to do that for a while, as I'm starting to get buried under work (thanks quantum mechanics and other chem stuff). Indeed the next two weeks will be so damn beautiful with all the tests, homework and other BS that I have to do.


Build yourself a quantum machine and create time paradoxes and loops. Problem solved.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

ephemereality said:


> Build yourself a quantum machine and create time paradoxes and loops. Problem solved.


Yeah that could be really useful. Somehow reminds me of the stuff that I and my classmates mentioned during a quantum chem lab while Excel refused to calculate shit. Anyway I'm just learning the basics of quantum that can be used for chemical systems (shit like particles inside boxes, particles derping on spheres and similar things) but still it's awesome.


----------



## Word Dispenser

*Skulks into Gamma forums, LIKE A SHADOW*
@ephemereality: Heyy, din't you say the protagonist from Stein's Gate is an ILE? Did you end up typing the other characters? :kitteh:

<_< ... >_>...

^_^


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> *Skulks into Gamma forums, LIKE A SHADOW*
> @ephemereality: Heyy, din't you say the protagonist from Stein's Gate is an ILE? Did you end up typing the other characters? :kitteh:
> 
> <_< ... >_>...
> 
> ^_^


The girl he was with is an SEI but aside that I didn't watch enough to even get introduced to the entire cast, so.


----------



## Sixty Nein

Nonsense said:


> I thought Mewtwo was kinda hot.
> 
> ​Because I'm sure the Gamma thread needed this information.


Well he is the character I put the most effort into, so clearly he'll be the best.



ephemereality said:


> Are they mutually exclusive? By the way, the director is the same as Attack on Titan. And I read your damn fanfic. That says it all.


So am I still an ILI in your eyes or what now? Am I going to have to migrate to Beta ville, or heaven forbid Delta land?


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Sixty Nein said:


> Well he is the character I put the most effort into, so clearly he'll be the best.


Oh, I meant in general, since we were already on the topic of Pokemon.


----------



## Sixty Nein

Nonsense said:


> Oh, I meant in general, since we were already on the topic of Pokemon.


Well I'm sure my fanfic made a considerable enough impact on your psyche, that any retroactive reflection into your impressions of the character, was tainted by my fic.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Sixty Nein said:


> Well I'm sure my fanfic made a considerable enough impact on your psyche, that any retroactive reflection into your impressions of the character, was tainted by my fic.


To be honest I wasn't sure what was happening most of the time, so I don't know.


----------



## Elyasis

Word Dispenser said:


> Hm.. Girl he was with...
> 
> Spunky red-head, or the petite girl with the brown flippy hair and the blue dress?


Spunky redhead is probably a LIE, either that or an LSE. Makise!


----------



## Entropic

Sixty Nein said:


> So am I still an ILI in your eyes or what now? Am I going to have to migrate to Beta ville, or heaven forbid Delta land?


What about Alphatown?


----------



## Word Dispenser

ephemereality said:


> What about Alphatown?


 @Sixty Nein: (Psst, we have Will Wheaton in Alphatown!)


----------



## Recede

I've been trying to figure out why preferring objective/external sensing should make someone care about power, competition, and making an impact. It just seems kind of like some random thing tacked onto it. Can anyone explain the connection?


----------



## Entropic

Silveresque said:


> I've been trying to figure out why preferring objective/external sensing should make someone care about power, competition, and making an impact. It just seems kind of like some random thing tacked onto it. Can anyone explain the connection?


It's because Se is about seeking physical results. I eat food, I taste it, I swallow; I see chair, I want to sit in chair, I go sit in chair. Hence competition is a good way to express Se too, because it's all about physically attainable goals. Same thing with impact and power.


----------



## Recede

ephemereality said:


> It's because Se is about seeking physical results. I eat food, I taste it, I swallow; I see chair, I want to sit in chair, I go sit in chair. Hence competition is a good way to express Se too, because it's all about physically attainable goals. Same thing with impact and power.


Hm, I still don't quite get it. Why is Se about seeking physical results? Can't you have perception without having goals or the desire to interact with your perceptions in specific ways (such as competition)? 

I can see why Si might make someone care more about physical comfort, because Si is sensitive to internal states. So might Se be kind of a sensitivity to the external situation such as what material things you have? But I'm still not sure why that would necessarily make someone want power/competition/impact. What if you just want what you want and don't care what anyone else has?


----------



## Elyasis

Silveresque said:


> Hm, I still don't quite get it. Why is Se about seeking physical results? Can't you have perception without having goals or the desire to interact with your perceptions in specific ways (such as competition)?
> 
> I can see why Si might make someone care more about physical comfort, because Si is sensitive to internal states. So might Se be kind of a sensitivity to the external situation such as what material things you have? But I'm still not sure why that would necessarily make someone want power/competition/impact. What if you just want what you want and don't care what anyone else has?


Think of two kids on a playground. One kid sits in the sandbox making a sandcastle because he enjoys the feel of the sand and the satisfaction he gets from making something. Another kid is fighting all the other kids to be king of the mountain. Why do you think this kid wants that? What purpose does it serve to win this game?

For the sandbox kid his inner experience and the enjoyment of it is enough to please him. But the king of the mountain child would be bored just sitting in a sandbox playing with sand. He wants to experience his effect on the external word in real time.

SLI versus SLE by the way.


----------



## Ghostsoul

I heard you were looking for ESI's


----------



## TootsieBear267

Hey, howdy, hey! New LIE here to hang out!


----------



## Sevenblade

Two different socionics tests have told me I'm an LIE 2-Te ENTj, even though I'm an INTJ (according to MBTI). It does seem quite accurate, and I'm not yet sure how socionics fits with MBTI... It seems rather more convoluted to me, and untangling it seems like a daunting and time-consuming task. Is the combination reasonably likely?

My enneatype is 8w7, if that helps.

EDIT: One test mentioned the "2-Te" bit. The other just said LIE ENTj.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Sevenblade said:


> Two different socionics tests have told me I'm an LIE 2-Te ENTj, even though I'm an INTJ (according to MBTI). It does seem quite accurate, and I'm not yet sure how socionics fits with MBTI... It seems rather more convoluted to me, and untangling it seems like a daunting and time-consuming task. Is the combination reasonably likely?
> 
> My enneatype is 8w7, if that helps.
> 
> EDIT: One test mentioned the "2-Te" bit. The other just said LIE ENTj.


Just from this, I'd suggest questionnaire. :kitteh:


----------



## Inveniet

TootsieBear267 said:


> Hey, howdy, hey! New LIE here to hang out!


Hey! roud:



Sevenblade said:


> It does seem quite accurate, and I'm not yet sure how socionics fits with MBTI... It seems rather more convoluted to me, and untangling it seems like a daunting and time-consuming task. Is the combination reasonably likely?


Shorthcut the whole thing by reading Jung.
They are both derived from the same source.

The combination is likely.
No enneagram don't matter directly.


----------



## Sevenblade

OK, thanks. I suppose I'll have to delve into socionics theory at some point, if I want to use it. It's good to know the combination isn't unlikely, though.


----------



## AST

Silveresque said:


> Hm, I still don't quite get it. Why is Se about seeking physical results? Can't you have perception without having goals or the desire to interact with your perceptions in specific ways (such as competition)?
> 
> I can see why Si might make someone care more about physical comfort, because Si is sensitive to internal states. So might Se be kind of a sensitivity to the external situation such as what material things you have? But I'm still not sure why that would necessarily make someone want power/competition/impact. What if you just want what you want and don't care what anyone else has?


Se's focus is directed outwardly, so it would favor actions with a positive effect outwardly, because it seeks out external stimuli. 
Si's focus is directed inwardly, so it would favor actions with a positive effect inwardly, because it seeks out internal stimuli.

Now, the presence and position of Se/Si in of itself would not determine what the person views as a positive effect. I would look to the person's enneagram type and which rational function with which the sensation is paired. I.e, Beta Se and Gamma Se are not the same, and neither are Alpha Si and Delta Si.

I can tell you, though, that because of Se's outward projection, Se-ego types definitely have a tendency to project our willpower and personal energy onto the world around us. This very much has to do with competition and self-assertion.
/response

I'd like to talk to some Gammas.


----------



## Entropic

AST said:


> I'd like to talk to some Gammas.


You rang.

But yes, in relation the rest of what you wrote, I feel like I have poor Se control in that I often desire to Se but I feel inadequate in doing it in a way that feels comfortable to me. I would say this has gotten a lot better after I began dualizing.

I also feel that a difference between gamma and beta Se is that gamma Se is much more people-oriented. It's all about having an effect on people. Beta Se seems more oriented towards the environment in a much more general sense.


----------



## AST

ephemereality said:


> You rang.
> 
> But yes, in relation the rest of what you wrote, I feel like I have poor Se control in that I often desire to Se but I feel inadequate in doing it in a way that feels comfortable to me. I would say this has gotten a lot better after I began dualizing.
> 
> I also feel that a difference between gamma and beta Se is that gamma Se is much more people-oriented. It's all about having an effect on people. Beta Se seems more oriented towards the environment in a much more general sense.


I find it easiest to explain Beta Se by using the bigger picture. I've often heard my quadra referred to as having a revolutionary bent, or something of the sort, by its detractors. As a whole, I don't think it's entirely inaccurate. Beta NF idealizes a future or goal based on their ethical standards. Because this standard is objective, it is seen as a beneficial think to impose upon the world. _It is the Beta ST that is the practical and tactical agent of Beta NF. Consequently, Beta Se's action focus is on the most logical way of accomplishing specific tasks, whether in accordance with our values or devoid of them. _Once this method has been established, Beta Se engages its focus upon the task at hand and the Beta ST's Super-Id Fe and Super-Ego Fi can allow for a complete disregard for ethical or interpersonal consequences of this method.

Questions for Gammas

1. What are your Ni abstractions like? (I always figured they are like Meshuggah album covers, for some reason)
2. How do you establish relationships with people 1-on-1 vs. in a group context?
3. What is your impression of each of the quadras, specifically as to the "place" of each?
4. Similar to the third question, what do you think of Alpha SF (if you are Gamma SF) or Alpha NT (if you are Gamma NT)?


----------



## Entropic

Kintsugi said:


> Yeah, I get you. It's _always _about interpretation.
> 
> We are humans; we are, fundamentally, deluded at the core. Not to mention most of us are fucking idiots. It's really quite simple.


Yes, and then there's the part where you wonder why any of this matters because human experience really transcends any classifications. Classifications simplify. 



> Agreed, again.
> 
> Sometimes I get myself tied into such knots with this shit. My SO just kind of sits back, watches me, and occasionally shakes his head a little. It's rather entertaining for him.
> 
> 
> 
> lol, what the fuck was I writing? Reading that back, it sounds kind of amusing. I'm so serious sometimes, how fucking adorable. XD
> 
> What I was trying to say, was...
> 
> Because I have the belief that most people are deluded idiots; therefore, it is not easy for me to trust their interpretations of this shit. Or something.
> 
> I sound like such a 6.
> 
> FUCK YOU AUTHORITY. Lol.


lol. God, the confusion. As much as I can complexify theory I do seek things somewhat simple at some level. 




> Yeah, I know. I just kinda want to be a special snowflake for a while.


lol, who doesn't? Well, if we actually ignored the damn type labels for a second we are.


----------



## Kintsugi

-Ephemeral- said:


> Yes, and then there's the part where you wonder why any of this matters because human experience really transcends any classifications. Classifications simplify.


Absofuckinglutely! ^_^

None of it matters...that's the answer I've been looking for this whole time! And I'm not even taking the piss!  XD



> lol. God, the confusion. As much as I can complexify theory I do seek things somewhat simple at some level.


It's kind of like watching this, right? 













> lol, who doesn't? Well, if we actually ignored the damn type labels for a second we are.


Fuck, yeah! 

I feel much better about it all now. Cheers, dude. ^_^


----------



## Entropic

Kintsugi said:


> It's kind of like watching this, right?


LOL, yes it actually is. 



> Fuck, yeah!
> 
> I feel much better about it all now. Cheers, dude. ^_^


No problem.


----------



## -Alpha-

Ladies.

I've arrived.

Done with enneagram.


----------



## Kintsugi

-Alpha- said:


> Ladies.
> 
> I've arrived.
> 
> Done with enneagram.


I think I need to give up on it too. It's too airy-fairy for me. I just feel like I'm pissing on other peoples fireworks all the time, in that forum. :mellow:


----------



## Elyasis

Enneagram seems simple on the surface, but its the same damn rabbit hole all these other systems invariably are.






And look how the rabbit runs.


----------



## Entropic

Elyasis said:


> Enneagram seems simple on the surface, but its the same damn rabbit hole all these other systems invariably are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And look how the rabbit runs.


I feel the problem with the enneagram is the fundamental error of focus and people getting stuck on superficialities like they do with the MBTI. 

Also successfully managed to piss people off in the Facebook socionics group for suggesting that I think it's bullshit to be an INTJ SEI, then again shitting over the idea that people want to correlate enneagram types with socionics elements like Se and 8, Te and 1 etc. /flex

Some things just never change.


----------



## Elyasis

-Ephemeral- said:


> Also successfully managed to piss people off[snipped]



If there is one thing I know about life it is that it's a lot easier to piss people off than to please them.


----------



## Elyasis

Dreiser (ESI) and Napoleon (SEE)








Jack (LIE) and Balzac (ILI)


----------



## chagak

As an INTJ who, upon testing for this Socionics thing, tested as an ILI type, I was a bit confused until I read the Gamma quadrant's characteristics. Now it makes better sense, as these characteristics are quite accurate.


----------



## Elyasis

chagak said:


> As an INTJ who, upon testing for this Socionics thing, tested as an ILI type, I was a bit confused until I read the Gamma quadrant's characteristics. Now it makes better sense, as these characteristics are quite accurate.


It's strange isn't that MBTI makes INTJ into this super efficient robot like person and Socionics says that we need a fire lit under our collectives asses to do anything. That's why you get some INTJ testing as LII and some as ILI, and yet more as LIE. They basically strip the Ni from ENTJ and INTJ, especially in a lot of online descriptions.


----------



## Dalton

Elyasis said:


> It's strange isn't that MBTI makes INTJ into this super efficient robot like person and Socionics says that we need a fire lit under our collectives asses to do anything. That's why you get some INTJ testing as LII and some as ILI, and yet more as LIE. They basically strip the Ni from ENTJ and INTJ, especially in a lot of online descriptions.


Wouldn't it be correct to say that MBTI sacrifices accuracy to make you feel good about yourself, while Socionics puts accuracy first?


----------



## Elyasis

Dalton said:


> Wouldn't it be correct to say that MBTI sacrifices accuracy to make you feel good about yourself, while Socionics puts accuracy first?


That honestly depends a lot on the descriptions given from various authors and their own personal understanding of the types. Overall I think MBTI is more useful for career placement purposes and Socionics for it's intertype relations.


----------



## Kintsugi

Dalton said:


> Wouldn't it be correct to say that MBTI sacrifices accuracy to make you feel good about yourself, while Socionics puts accuracy first?


Are you suffering from low self esteem?





..I'm not taunting you,at all.


----------



## Dalton

Kintsugi said:


> Are you suffering from low self esteem?
> 
> ..I'm not taunting you,at all.


:laughing: Yes, and clinical depression. My perception's probably a bit skewed.


----------



## Kintsugi

Dalton said:


> :laughing: Yes, and clinical depression. My perception's probably a bit skewed.


Let's have sex. It might help. Even if we just use our imaginations. <3


----------



## Entropic

Mindfucking is the best kind of fucking.


----------



## Dalton

Kintsugi said:


> Let's have sex. It might help. Even if we just use our imaginations. <3











That's a fine proposition.


----------



## Mostly Harmless

I'm cross posting this from the ISFP confessions thread because I thought it might be somewhat related to quadras and preferred modes of interaction and all that jazz.
---

So ... I'm not really sure how to describe this ... but it made me really uncomfortable for some reason ... so I'll try.

I don't like it when groups of friends hang out and take pictures to post on facebook, talking about how close they are and how "some women are worth the mess and the trouble" or whatever. My experience is mostly with women doing this kind of thing because I'm less privy to bro bonding ... but I feel like that would probably make me uncomfortable as well and it's not really a gendered thing.

I have lots of close girlfriends. In fact, most of my close friends are women. I just ... I hate the idea of hanging out as a gaggle and talking/thinking incessantly of how close we are as a group and flaunting female friendship or whatever. It makes me really uncomfortable. And it makes me uncomfortable too when I see friends of mine doing it. I don't give a shit about not being invited to participate, I know I would hate it and be a total downer. And ultimately, I don't judge them for doing something that works for them either. But ... IDK. It just makes me uncomfortable. Like they're simulating some kind of fulfilment and making a huge spectacle out of it and everything is on display for everyone. It's creepy.

I sound like a bitch, don't I.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Mostly Harmless said:


> I'm cross posting this from the ISFP confessions thread because I thought it might be somewhat related to quadras and preferred modes of interaction and all that jazz.
> ---
> 
> So ... I'm not really sure how to describe this ... but it made me really uncomfortable for some reason ... so I'll try.
> 
> I don't like it when groups of friends hang out and take pictures to post on facebook, talking about how close they are and how "some women are worth the mess and the trouble" or whatever. My experience is mostly with women doing this kind of thing because I'm less privy to bro bonding ... but I feel like that would probably make me uncomfortable as well and it's not really a gendered thing.
> 
> I have lots of close girlfriends. In fact, most of my close friends are women. I just ... I hate the idea of hanging out as a gaggle and talking/thinking incessantly of how close we are as a group and flaunting female friendship or whatever. It makes me really uncomfortable. And it makes me uncomfortable too when I see friends of mine doing it. I don't give a shit about not being invited to participate, I know I would hate it and be a total downer. And ultimately, I don't judge them for doing something that works for them either. But ... IDK. It just makes me uncomfortable. Like they're simulating some kind of fulfilment and making a huge spectacle out of it and everything is on display for everyone. It's creepy.
> 
> I sound like a bitch, don't I.


wut


Sorry, I'll just go back to lurking.


----------



## Mostly Harmless

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> wut
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'll just go back to lurking.


I'm not sure what you mean?


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Mostly Harmless said:


> I'm not sure what you mean?


I was confused and had trouble relating, but you were posting this in the Gamma thread to get responses from Gammas, which I am not, so I went back to lurking.


----------



## Mostly Harmless

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> I was confused and had trouble relating, but you were posting this in the Gamma thread to get responses from Gammas, which I am not, so I went back to lurking.


Hmm. Agreement and affirmation are nice of course but it would also be good to get another perspective on it, too, so non-Gammas are welcome to explain to me why they have trouble relating to my post. Because I get that other people feel differently about it but it's really difficult for me to fathom why.

This particular group of friends is palpably merry (Beta > Alpha, mostly, I think) and they manage to irk me just by being themselves. I like them one on one but I've had root canals without anesthesia that were more fun than hanging out with them as a group.


----------



## Dalton

Mostly Harmless said:


> ....Like they're simulating some kind of fulfilment and making a huge spectacle out of it and everything is on display for everyone. It's creepy.
> 
> I sound like a bitch, don't I.


No, I know what you mean. I have no problem judging them. They seem to constantly ask themselves, "What's the point to [_noun_] if I can't brag about it?" I think it's ridiculous that people act like that. If you can't find worth in something unless it's "Facebook official", you have a problem.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Mostly Harmless said:


> Hmm. Agreement and affirmation are nice of course but it would also be good to get another perspective on it, too, so non-Gammas are welcome to explain to me why they have trouble relating to my post. Because I get that other people feel differently about it but it's really difficult for me to fathom why.
> 
> This particular group of friends is palpably merry (Beta > Alpha, mostly, I think) and they manage to irk me just by being themselves. I like them one on one but I've had root canals without anesthesia that were more fun than hanging out with them as a group.


Do you think they're being superficial?


----------



## Mostly Harmless

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Do you think they're being superficial?


Well, I feel that their friendships are deep and genuine. They really care about each other. But there's so much theatricality about it. Not the kind of aesthetic theatricality, which I can admire as performance art though. More like Sex and the City theatricality. Which they totally, wholeheartedly enjoy.

I mean, I know it's really really not about me. But at the same time, I guess, as an unwitting observer, it feels like it is? It's just that there's so little interiority. Anything that's felt is displayed. That just feels wrong to me.

The hilarious thing is that I really do not mind public physical displays of affection between couples
but public platonic displays will send me into a flap.


----------



## Dalton

Mostly Harmless said:


> The hilarious thing is that I really do not mind public physical displays of affection between couples
> but public platonic displays will send me into a flap.


It's one thing for a couple to have a bit of kissing in public, but it's entirely different for them to rip off their clothes and go at it on the floor in a crowded bar, intending for others to see it.

It's disappointing to see people who are so thirsty for attention that they need to flaunt the fact that they have friends. "Hey guys, I don't just have _friends!_ I have _awesome_ friends. Isn't it awesome that I'm awesome enough to have all these awesome friends? We're awesome _together!_"

That makes me want to vomit.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Mostly Harmless said:


> Well, I feel that their friendships are deep and genuine. They really care about each other. But there's so much theatricality about it. Not the kind of aesthetic theatricality, which I can admire as performance art though. More like Sex and the City theatricality. Which they totally, wholeheartedly enjoy.
> 
> I mean, I know it's really really not about me. But at the same time, I guess, as an unwitting observer, it feels like it is? It's just that there's so little interiority. Anything that's felt is displayed. That just feels wrong to me.
> 
> The hilarious thing is that I really do not mind public physical displays of affection between couples
> but public platonic displays will send me into a flap.


Why does it bother you? 

To me, I guess I could see how it would bother someone if I just thought they were doing it for attention or whatever.


----------



## Vermillion

Mostly Harmless said:


> I'm cross posting this from the ISFP confessions thread because I thought it might be somewhat related to quadras and preferred modes of interaction and all that jazz.
> ---
> 
> So ... I'm not really sure how to describe this ... but it made me really uncomfortable for some reason ... so I'll try.
> 
> I don't like it when groups of friends hang out and take pictures to post on facebook, talking about how close they are and how "some women are worth the mess and the trouble" or whatever. My experience is mostly with women doing this kind of thing because I'm less privy to bro bonding ... but I feel like that would probably make me uncomfortable as well and it's not really a gendered thing.
> 
> I have lots of close girlfriends. In fact, most of my close friends are women. I just ... I hate the idea of hanging out as a gaggle and talking/thinking incessantly of how close we are as a group and flaunting female friendship or whatever. It makes me really uncomfortable. And it makes me uncomfortable too when I see friends of mine doing it. I don't give a shit about not being invited to participate, I know I would hate it and be a total downer. And ultimately, I don't judge them for doing something that works for them either. But ... IDK. It just makes me uncomfortable. Like they're simulating some kind of fulfilment and making a huge spectacle out of it and everything is on display for everyone. It's creepy.
> 
> I sound like a bitch, don't I.


I like having friends to hang out with and bond with lol. As long as they're smart and offer me the sort of connection I need, and as long as my anxiety doesn't kick in, I can love socializing and doing a lot of dumb stuff with my friends. 

When I see pictures of outings from other social groups I just mostly get perplexed as to what connection they even share by means of just discussing derpy jokes with each other, and I find the whole spiel about needing to have a bunch of girl bffs pretty lolworthy. Some people even write articles about how to be the best "girlfriend" and how bonding with your favorite girl beats any other sort of relationship ever. That's funny as fuck lol, why the big gender divide even has to influence what friends matter more

idk, being so frustrated with the idea of bonding as friends doesn't seem so much a gamma thing as much as it just seems like... well, frustration.


----------



## Vermillion

Dalton said:


> It's one thing for a couple to have a bit of kissing in public, but it's entirely different for them to rip off their clothes and go at it on the floor in a crowded bar, intending for others to see it.
> 
> It's disappointing to see people who are so thirsty for attention that they need to flaunt the fact that they have friends. "Hey guys, I don't just have _friends!_ I have _awesome_ friends. Isn't it awesome that I'm awesome enough to have all these awesome friends? We're awesome _together!_"
> 
> That makes me want to vomit.


if they want attention and know how to get it, I'd say they're being pretty smart with relation to their objective  I mean why should wanting attention and trying to get it always be a bad thing? But it's just your opinion so whatever.


----------



## Dalton

Amaterasu said:


> if they want attention and know how to get it, I'd say they're being pretty smart with relation to their objective  I mean why should wanting attention and trying to get it always be a bad thing? But it's just your opinion so whatever.


I tend to be aggressive when I think that others value "the wrong things". I can understand the value of sincere attention, but superficial attention only provides an ego boost, AFAIK. Of course, this all comes from the assumption that I'm right and everybody else is wrong.


----------



## Vermillion

Dalton said:


> I tend to be aggressive when I think that others value "the wrong things". I can understand the value of sincere attention, but superficial attention only provides an ego boost, AFAIK. Of course, this all comes from the assumption that I'm right and everybody else is wrong.


Is an ego boost bad? Imo it isn't. People are trying to get attention because on some level they need it. Even if they do stupid things for its sake I can still respect that they were just trying to satisfy themselves and feel good. And everyone's entitled to feeling good as long as they aren't hurting others.


----------



## Mostly Harmless

Amaterasu said:


> I like having friends to hang out with and bond with lol. As long as they're smart and offer me the sort of connection I need, and as long as my anxiety doesn't kick in, I can love socializing and doing a lot of dumb stuff with my friends.
> 
> When I see pictures of outings from other social groups I just mostly get perplexed as to what connection they even share by means of just discussing derpy jokes with each other, and I find the whole spiel about needing to have a bunch of girl bffs pretty lolworthy. Some people even write articles about how to be the best "girlfriend" and how bonding with your favorite girl beats any other sort of relationship ever. That's funny as fuck lol, why the big gender divide even has to influence what friends matter more
> 
> idk, being so frustrated with the idea of bonding as friends doesn't seem so much a gamma thing as much as it just seems like... well, frustration.


Well, of course I don't think bonding with friends is bad. I'm actually a normal, socially well adjusted person. I even have real friends, lol. And I enjoy hanging out with them.

But what you described in the second paragraph is exactly what I find frustrating. a.) Building a connection over derpy jokes (how?! WHY?!) and b.) when said connection is obviously part of some kind of friendship script and is constantly on display.


----------



## Vermillion

I have a general question to people: do you see it as strength to be thick-skinned and not express your problems/negative emotions? Is it strength to be unaffected?


----------



## Word Dispenser

Amaterasu said:


> I have a general question to people: do you see it as strength to be thick-skinned and not express your problems/negative emotions? Is it strength to be unaffected?


I think that there's always a middle path-- Moderation. 

I think that it can be a weakness to express your problems/negative emotions when it's done _constantly_. There are people who do this, and weaken themselves, as well as others.

But, if it's done in times of stress, and just as a healthy way to understand and/or share with others, to strengthen bonds, and to actually help _strengthen _the _self_-- Then this is a strength.

It can be difficult to differentiate between when this is a strength or a weakness though. Normally, I take my cue from others-- Could I be burdening others too much with my problems/negative emotions, since this is becoming a more common occurrence? I may ask, in that case, and might even apologize. I know that sounds odd, since most of the time, they probably wouldn't admit that it's getting to be too much (unfortunately)-- But, they had their chance! :kitteh:


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Amaterasu said:


> I have a general question to people: do you see it as strength to be thick-skinned and not express your problems/negative emotions? Is it strength to be unaffected?


I tend to see it that was, but that's likely because I'm so bad at being unaffected myself.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

Amaterasu said:


> I have a general question to people: do you see it as strength to be thick-skinned and not express your problems/negative emotions? Is it strength to be unaffected?


I value people who are willing to appear vulnerable to others greatly. I think it requires courage and strenght to present yourself raw and honest and that there's nothing weak about it, it is admirable. On the contrary, most people are reluctant to present themselves in a way that shows their supposed "weakness", they are more focused on maintaining an image for other people. I think being thick-skinned and not expressing negative emotions are different things. Some people have more tolerance for certain things while others may take those things more personal or may be greatly affected by them. Being thick-skinned's probably a matter of placing your psychological weaknesses in different places rather than actually being an overall more resistant person. However, not communicating your problems doesn't mean they don't exist. It is usually a way of ignoring them. The people that face their situation, their most honest feelings and most horrid thoughts, are the strong ones. They are the ones that face reality.

Of course, I think in some situations expressing certain things can have negative consequences but, at the same time, the level of openness about yourself you can have with someone is both demonstrative and influential of how tight the bond between you is.


----------



## Monkey King

Amaterasu said:


> I have a general question to people: do you see it as strength to be thick-skinned and not express your problems/negative emotions? Is it strength to be unaffected?


Depends who you are and what situation. I say if I try to act thick-skinned with a person that I trust, I have to re-evaluate that relationship. Thick-skin in a supposed close relationship would be a sign of a weak relationship.


----------



## Vermillion

Thanks for your opinions guys. The reason I asked this question is because I'm sick of a lot of different people treating strength as the ability to store negativity within themselves and not express it however provoked they feel. And so many people romanticize not having feelings or using defense mechanisms like humor to avoid their problems. They're romanticizing numbness -- the easy way out. I think there's way more strength in recognizing your problems consciously, making the effort to live with them and not giving up on finding a solution that works for you. If this means you express and get emotional about your problems, so be it. In many cases the expression of problems is a sign of progress. 

And when people are overly sensitive, they shouldn't only be told "don't give a fuck about others" or "don't let it get to you"... maybe we can start by telling them their emotionality is vivid and makes for colorful, passionate experiences -- only in some cases it isn't healthy. 

Of course, this applies to people willing to develop themselves.


----------



## Monkey King

Amaterasu said:


> I think there's way more strength in recognizing your problems consciously, making the effort to live with them and not giving up on finding a solution that works for you..



There's a time and place for everything. However, the above quote, I agree with completely.


----------



## Dalton

Amaterasu said:


> STOP LAUGHING AT ME :angry:


I was laughing at the song, but okay. roud:


----------



## Vermillion

Dalton said:


> I was laughing at the song, but okay. roud:


omg. Whatever you guys are just too caught up in all your ~sophistication~ to know cuteness when it comes by.


----------



## LibertyPrime




----------



## Word Dispenser

FreeBeer said:


>


It's the only thing that this generation responds to. Bill Nye swearing. :shocked:


----------



## Vermillion

Beyond a point all the millions of different models and theories within Socionics get so goddamn tangled up with each other that being "right" just comes down to who presents more convoluted information. Socionics theorists really could use a bit of that Bill Nye pic above. It seems so much more intuitive as a theory when it isn't stretched and dragged this way and that to create model after model after fucking model. Everything that you can just understand by abstraction has to be pinned down with a new name; a cognitive style, a club, a dimensionality, an element sign... mazes inside mazes. The wealth of information is interesting but at some point it just has to stop 

I think that's my PoLR calling, says it has a headache.


----------



## Entropic

Amaterasu said:


> Beyond a point all the millions of different models and theories within Socionics get so goddamn tangled up with each other that being "right" just comes down to who presents more convoluted information. Socionics theorists really could use a bit of that Bill Nye pic above. It seems so much more intuitive as a theory when it isn't stretched and dragged this way and that to create model after model after fucking model. Everything that you can just understand by abstraction has to be pinned down with a new name; a cognitive style, a club, a dimensionality, an element sign... mazes inside mazes. The wealth of information is interesting but at some point it just has to stop
> 
> I think that's my PoLR calling, says it has a headache.


Well, with Ne, that's what I was thinking. /pats

It's inevitable with any system though, that people will approach it in different ways and figure out things that fits their way of seeing things. Which is ironic given the nature of the system that we're observing in the first place.


----------



## Vermillion

Entropic said:


> Well, with Ne, that's what I was thinking. /pats
> 
> It's inevitable with any system though, that people will approach it in different ways and figure out things that fits their way of seeing things. Which is ironic given the nature of the system that we're observing in the first place.


It's not about the different interpretations per se, more like I despise how all the different models constructed within the system offer like 10000 different reasons for both why something is and isn't true. When you have contradictions like that it's so hard to find an overlap and see the *true* system because it's just... idk, impossible to figure what is causing what. People need to learn to stop at a certain level to maintain at least some semblance of simplicity and not try to infinitely create spin-off theories with new reasons and new keywords and new explanations for why everything happens. What a load of shit.

And yeah fair enough, let's make it a headache with the superego in general then.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

Amaterasu said:


> Beyond a point all the millions of different models and theories within Socionics get so goddamn tangled up with each other that being "right" just comes down to who presents more convoluted information. Socionics theorists really could use a bit of that Bill Nye pic above. It seems so much more intuitive as a theory when it isn't stretched and dragged this way and that to create model after model after fucking model. Everything that you can just understand by abstraction has to be pinned down with a new name; a cognitive style, a club, a dimensionality, an element sign... mazes inside mazes. The wealth of information is interesting but at some point it just has to stop
> 
> I think that's my PoLR calling, says it has a headache.


Eh, I feel the same way. Makes me lose interest in the theory as a whole. Is that why I like Jung lol? He writes some vague as shit paragraphs and sticks to an 8-types model, kind of. The man went to the core and explained it in depth.


----------



## Entropic

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Eh, I feel the same way. Makes me lose interest in the theory as a whole. Is that why I like Jung lol? He writes some vague as shit paragraphs and sticks to an 8-types model, kind of. The man went to the core and explained it in depth.


Yeah, I prefer model A honestly. I feel like there's little the other theories can explain model A doesn't. They may add nuance but that's all that they do.


----------



## Vermillion

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Eh, I feel the same way. Makes me lose interest in the theory as a whole. Is that why I like Jung lol? He writes some vague as shit paragraphs and sticks to an 8-types model, kind of. The man went to the core and explained it in depth.


Oh good, I'm not alone in my frustration. Despite the frustration though, the theories are colorful and I secretly wish they were more elaborate/I can understand and utilize them better.


----------



## Entropic

Amaterasu said:


> Oh good, I'm not alone in my frustration. Despite the frustration though, the theories are colorful and I secretly wish they were more elaborate/I can understand and utilize them better.


lol, are you a masochist?

*thinks of clever ways of how to utilize this information in the future*


----------



## Vermillion

Entropic said:


> lol, are you a masochist?
> 
> *thinks of clever ways of how to utilize this information in the future*


...
not going to comment.


----------



## Kintsugi

This whole forum is full of fucking shit. Gamma, restore my faith in humanity.


----------



## Dalton

Kintsugi said:


> This whole forum is full of *fucking shit*. Gamma, restore my faith in humanity.


I imagined two people made of feces in a sexual embrace. Does that restore faith?

I hope so, but I assume it does the opposite.

How do you desire for me to restore your faith?


----------



## Kintsugi

Dalton said:


> I imagined two people made of feces in a sexual embrace. Does that restore faith?
> 
> I hope so, but I assume it does the opposite.
> 
> How do you desire for me to restore your faith?


Enlighten me. 

With regards the two people covered in shit, fucking; what I want to really know is, _why?_

I don't understand. I would like to.

Why does such a fetish exist. There is a theory that claims that this stuff links back to childhood trauma/and or/ experiences in some way.

What do you think? 

Fetishes are rather interesting.

But really. Why are humans so ignorant? Myself included.


----------



## Vermillion

Kintsugi said:


> This whole forum is full of fucking shit. Gamma, restore my faith in humanity.


Wouldn't count on it. There are despicable gammas in our midst too.


----------



## Kintsugi

Amaterasu said:


> Wouldn't count on it. There are despicable gammas in our midst too.


True story. Just like there are fucking awesome Alphas. I'm Totally loving up some open-minded and chilled out SEIs and ILEs right now.

Until I get all all dark on them, that is. ^_^


----------



## Vermillion

Kintsugi said:


> True story. Just like there are fucking awesome Alphas. I'm Totally loving up some open-minded and chilled out SEIs and ILEs right now.
> 
> Until I get all all dark on them, that is. ^_^


Depends on what I'm looking for in people. I trust a group of betas to joke around with and have a crazy fun time with together. I trust alphas to introduce people to groups and generally do a good job at making you feel lighter and more casual about life. I trust deltas for solid, realistic advice about how to work and lead life; they have great and really quirky tips. I trust gammas to... 

Wait, I'm not sure what I trust gammas for, tbh. :shocked:


----------



## Kintsugi

Amaterasu said:


> Depends on what I'm looking for in people. I trust a group of betas to joke around with and have a crazy fun time with together. I trust alphas to introduce people to groups and generally do a good job at making you feel lighter and more casual about life. I trust deltas for solid, realistic advice about how to work and lead life; they have great and really quirky tips. I trust gammas to...
> 
> Wait, I'm not sure what I trust gammas for, tbh. :shocked:



You can trust Gammas to not be perturbed when you speak your mind or to be offended when you crack that "distasteful" Hitler joke.

Or something like that.

Gamma darkness. It's a rare but beautiful thing, I find.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

^^Does that make Gammas an emo group ? :ninja:


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

Amaterasu said:


> Does anyone have any weird Socionics fetishes.


I had a cool dream with Augusta in it.


----------



## Vermillion

Kintsugi said:


> I'd quite like to supervise my supervisors (LSI) ass, and make them my slave for the day. That could be kinky.


This sounds good. Count me in. The more Ti-devaluation thrust in their face, the better.



Pancreatic Pandora said:


> I had a cool dream with Augusta in it.


I'm all ears.


----------



## Gentleman

Amaterasu said:


> Does anyone have any weird Socionics fetishes.


I want my supervisor or my conflictor to lock me in a chastity device, then let them own me and dominate my life.

Or have a tall sexy EIE woman bust down my front door, then tie me to a table and launch an Fe crusade on my asshole.

That would be fucking epic.


----------



## MNiS

Amaterasu said:


> Does anyone have any weird Socionics fetishes.


I like dominating people who've been naughty. Oh, and dual sex is pretty awesome which is probably the best reason to get your Sociotype right. Otherwise I'm pretty vanilla and focus on the quality vs the quantity of experience.


----------



## tangosthenes

Amaterasu said:


> Does anyone have any weird Socionics fetishes.


forknut


----------



## MNiS

I read an article today in the NYT about food menus in US public schools. It makes me sick to think that a program designed to have kids eat healthier can have so much politics and special interest dragged into it. Ultimately, I think the menus will turn out to be healthier and probably something more akin to hospital food but at least that's a step in the right direction. I think it's disturbing when poor kids who're receiving these meals for free would rather throw away fruits and vegetables then complain about still being hungry. It makes one wonder what their eating habits are like at home.

My 2¢.


----------



## Word Dispenser

MNiS said:


> I read an article today in the NYT about food menus in US public schools. It makes me sick to think that a program designed to have kids eat healthier can have so much politics and special interest dragged into it. Ultimately, I think the menus will turn out to be healthier and probably something more akin to hospital food but at least that's a step in the right direction. I think it's disturbing when poor kids who're receiving these meals for free would rather throw away fruits and vegetables then complain about still being hungry. It makes one wonder what their eating habits are like at home.
> 
> My 2¢.


The cents symbol makes it all look so classy. :kitteh:

Kind of not related, but at least it's about food...

They should use beet root for red food colouring, _if _they _must _use it.

They normally use E120, or Carmine:

*Carmine* (/ˈkɑrmɪn/ or /ˈkɑrmaɪn/), also called *crimson lake*, *cochineal*, *natural red 4*,[SUP][1][/SUP] *C.I. 75470*,[SUP][1][/SUP] or *E120*, is a pigment of a bright-red color obtained from the aluminium salt of carminic acid, which is produced by some scale insects, such as the cochineal scale and the Polish cochineal, and is used as a general term for a particularly deep-red color of the same name. Carmine is used in the manufacture of artificial flowers, paints, crimson ink, rouge, and other cosmetics, and is routinely added to food products such as yogurt and certain brands of juice, the most notable ones being those of the ruby-red variety.

AKA: We're eating the secretions of exploited bugs. Poor little guys.


----------



## MNiS

Word Dispenser said:


> The cents symbol makes it all look so classy. :kitteh:
> 
> Kind of not related, but at least it's about food...
> 
> They should use beet root for red food colouring, _if _they _must _use it.
> 
> They normally use E120, or Carmine:
> 
> *Carmine* (/ˈkɑrmɪn/ or /ˈkɑrmaɪn/), also called *crimson lake*, *cochineal*, *natural red 4*,[SUP][1][/SUP] *C.I. 75470*,[SUP][1][/SUP] or *E120*, is a pigment of a bright-red color obtained from the aluminium salt of carminic acid, which is produced by some scale insects, such as the cochineal scale and the Polish cochineal, and is used as a general term for a particularly deep-red color of the same name. Carmine is used in the manufacture of artificial flowers, paints, crimson ink, rouge, and other cosmetics, and is routinely added to food products such as yogurt and certain brands of juice, the most notable ones being those of the ruby-red variety.


Thanks.  The article kind of struck a cord with me today so I thought I'd share.

Ah, I covered a bit of food colors in organic chemistry back in college so I do remember a bit about them. Aren't some food colorings also associated with ADHD?



Word Dispenser said:


> AKA: We're eating the secretions of exploited bugs. Poor little guys.


The wiki says it's the boiled bugs themselves that provide the coloring. Still, I'm sure they lived full little bug lives before they ended up as red food dye.


----------



## Word Dispenser

MNiS said:


> Thanks.  The article kind of struck a cord with me today so I thought I'd share.
> 
> Ah, I covered a bit of food colors in organic chemistry back in college so I do remember a bit about them. Aren't some food colorings also associated with ADHD?
> 
> 
> 
> The wiki says it's the boiled bugs themselves that provide the coloring. Still, I'm sure they lived full little bug lives before they ended up as red food dye.


Sigh. It's like honey bees all over again.

You know, I think Einstein, or Franklin, or somebody, said that if all bees died out, humans would go extinct? Interesting proposal.

I think the ebola will get us first, but then again, it suspiciously seems like a publicity scare tactic thingamajig.


----------



## MNiS

Word Dispenser said:


> Sigh. It's like honey bees all over again.
> 
> You know, I think Einstein, or Franklin, or somebody, said that if all bees died out, humans would go extinct? Interesting proposal.
> 
> I think the ebola will get us first, but then again, it suspiciously seems like a publicity scare tactic thingamajig.


I think the scare with Colony Collapse Disorder with honey bees was mostly a man-made disaster. The bees were found to be ingesting dozens of pesticides that made them weak to begin with and there were a circulation of bee-based infections that would completely devastate a colony. AFAIK, CCD is still a threat but the worst of it seems to be over and the bees haven't gone extinct as some were predicting. Although it may still be too early to conclude anything.

I do think it's kind of humorous to think that China's solution to the disappearing bees was to solicit people to pollinate trees and flowers. Although I think education on pesticides usage would likely go much further in areas where bee colonies keep dying off.

Yeah, I don't know what the deal with ebola is. It seems kind of suspicious that there would suddenly be an outbreak. I've read that the local populations didn't help matters in which one instance, broke into a treatment center and ebola infected people and material were carried off and the infected blankets and things distributed amongst one anothe. That would be a nightmare if one's goal is to control the infection vectors so that they don't spread further.

Here in the US, things seem to be okay although one person's already died from it after traveling to Liberia. Why the US hasn't instituted a travel ban on the affected areas is beyond me and the NHA's reasoning sounds bupkis to me. I'm guessing the government doesn't want to raise any more alarm about ebola than they absolutely have to.


----------



## Word Dispenser

MNiS said:


> Yeah, I don't know what the deal with ebola is. It seems kind of suspicious that there would suddenly be an outbreak. I've read that the local populations didn't help matters in which one instance, broke into a treatment center and ebola infected people and material were carried off and the infected blankets and things distributed amongst one anothe. That would be a nightmare if one's goal is to control the infection vectors so that they don't spread further.
> 
> Here in the US, things seem to be okay although one person's already died from it after traveling to Liberia. Why the US hasn't instituted a travel ban on the affected areas is beyond me and the NHA's reasoning sounds bupkis to me. I'm guessing the government doesn't want to raise any more alarm about ebola than they absolutely have to.


Well, there've been a lot of similar oddities. Like, someone getting ebola in another country, a nurse, I think ? They were sent home. :angry:

I don't understand why restrictions on travel haven't been implemented. It's a seriously contagious and frightening prospect.

But, it's what people've been saying all along, I suppose. Humanity will kill _itself _off. I just suppose that incompetent quarantine wasn't necessarily what anyone was thinking of.

I kinda think of it like those zombie movies, where the zombie infection is _just _starting to spread, and no action is being taken because it's not taken as seriously as it should be.


----------



## Vermillion

MNiS said:


> I like dominating people who've been naughty. Oh, and dual sex is pretty awesome which is probably the best reason to get your Sociotype right. Otherwise I'm pretty vanilla and focus on the quality vs the quantity of experience.


Someone being your dual doesn't exclude them from being an ugly, lazy jerk though. Do you really want to fuck someone like that? 



tangosthenes said:


> forknut


wat


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Word Dispenser said:


> It's a seriously contagious and frightening prospect.


Ebola isn't one of the most contagious viruses.

For comparison, influenza is much more common, and even kills more people annually. The average person with influenza spreads it to 2 other people (with different strains, could be slightly more or less), assuming no vaccination or quarantine. This is the same for Ebola. This, along with stuff like tuberculosis and malaria have killed way more people, but isn't given any attention by the media because it's nothing new. 

The mortality rate in West Africa is about 70 percent, but I'm not sure what the mortality rate would be if they were to have access to a hospital and doctors in developed countries. Obviously, it's being given a lot of attention by the WHO and Doctors without Borders, but to what extent and how many resources relative to someone in the U.S (for example), I don't know, so I'm not sure if the mortality rate is unnecessarily high. 

If you want travel bans because of infectious diseases, you can rule out a huge chunk of countries in Africa and Asia. I think doctors specializing in infectious diseases know a bit more about this stuff than you, so I don't know why you call it incompetent quarantine, if you were even serious. 

I don't think humanity will get wiped out by Ebola... But infectious diseases are a huge potential problem for us, with our global interconnectivity. Luckily, that's increased along with our medical knowledge and technology. Although the former is much less useful, until AI comes into the picture one day, hopefully. *crosses fingers*


----------



## MNiS

Amaterasu said:


> Someone being your dual doesn't exclude them from being an ugly, lazy jerk though. Do you really want to fuck someone like that?


Well like I said, I go for quality over quantity so it would be quality people only. Unless your Quasimodo has some quality to them that others can't readily see. 

Also, if you have such contempt for someone who is supposedly your dual then you're either being petty or you two aren't duals. Just an FYI.


----------



## MNiS

Word Dispenser said:


> Well, there've been a lot of similar oddities. Like, someone getting ebola in another country, a nurse, I think ? They were sent home. :angry:
> 
> I don't understand why restrictions on travel haven't been implemented. It's a seriously contagious and frightening prospect.
> 
> But, it's what people've been saying all along, I suppose. Humanity will kill _itself _off. I just suppose that incompetent quarantine wasn't necessarily what anyone was thinking of.
> 
> I kinda think of it like those zombie movies, where the zombie infection is _just _starting to spread, and no action is being taken because it's not taken as seriously as it should be.


Yeah, that nurse contracted ebola from missionaries who just came from the region. They had to euthanize the family's dog. :\

I think mass hysteria would do a lot more damage than the disease itself though. So far though, ebola seems to be mostly contained which isn't reassuring when non-aid workers are allowed to enter and leave affected areas.

Yeah, I was thinking about zombie apocalypses and the diseases in those types of movies are always super contagious and assume exponential infection rates. That's not the case with ebola in reality though and I believe most of the nations that were hardest hit have said the worst of the outbreak is over. Hopefully, anyway. You never know with infectious diseases.


----------



## Vermillion

MNiS said:


> Also, if you have such contempt for someone who is supposedly your dual then you're either being petty or you two aren't duals. Just an FYI.


LOL no... not at all. Duality = predicted to be easiest and smoothest information communication among all intertype relations.
Duality does not account for: opinions on character and personality, difference in values and life goals, or attractiveness.

There's nothing petty about thinking someone has a bad lifestyle, or not appreciating their attitudes and values in general. If I have a dual who is interested in being racist and judgmental for example, I don't give a fuck about their Ni or Te. They're trash to me, and deserve the contempt I give them.


----------



## MNiS

Amaterasu said:


> LOL no... not at all. Duality = predicted to be easiest and smoothest information communication among all intertype relations.
> Duality does not account for: opinions on character and personality, difference in values and life goals, or attractiveness.


I suppose how unaligned the views are and how open-minded both parties are. Opinions on character, values and life goals are secondary factors when it comes to dating. With the primary factors being physical, emotional and intellectual compatibility/chemistry.



Amaterasu said:


> There's nothing petty about thinking someone has a bad lifestyle, or not appreciating their attitudes and values in general. If I have a dual who is interested in being racist and judgmental for example, I don't give a fuck about their Ni or Te. They're trash to me, and deserve the contempt I give them.


None of that is what you originally said though. Because no, I wouldn't consider a relationship with someone whom I'd consider to be ugly and a lazy jerk but you made the assumption that, that's the type of person I were referring to. So yeah, you're being petty.


----------



## Vermillion

MNiS said:


> I suppose how unaligned the views are and how open-minded both parties are. Opinions on character, values and life goals are secondary factors when it comes to dating. With the primary factors being physical, emotional and intellectual compatibility/chemistry.
> 
> None of that is what you originally said though. Because no, I wouldn't consider a relationship with someone whom I'd consider to be ugly and a lazy jerk but you made the assumption that, that's the type of person I were referring to. So yeah, you're being petty.


No, I'm not. I think there's a time and place for you to have a smart mouth, and this isn't one of those times. 

You said that if I think my dual is an ugly, lazy jerk, either they aren't my dual or I'm being petty. However there is nothing in Socionics theory that actually suggests that duality is actually anything more than ease of information exchange. Unless you're reading the descriptions at extreme face value. Therefore it is perfectly possible to think your dual is ugly, and equally possible to devalue their lifestyle and choices and thus find them completely unattractive and have a bad opinion. 

You also said that sex with a dual is guaranteed to be amazing, however there is no way for you to account for your dual being someone attractive, agreeable or even remotely compatible. Or capable of of fulfilling you sexually, because Socionics never said anything about intertype in bed. So yeah, if there's anyone starting out with assumption it's you.


----------



## Word Dispenser

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Ebola isn't one of the most contagious viruses.
> 
> For comparison, influenza is much more common, and even kills more people annually. The average person with influenza spreads it to 2 other people (with different strains, could be slightly more or less), assuming no vaccination or quarantine. This is the same for Ebola. This, along with stuff like tuberculosis and malaria have killed way more people, but isn't given any attention by the media because it's nothing new.
> 
> The mortality rate in West Africa is about 70 percent, but I'm not sure what the mortality rate would be if they were to have access to a hospital and doctors in developed countries. Obviously, it's being given a lot of attention by the WHO and Doctors without Borders, but to what extent and how many resources relative to someone in the U.S (for example), I don't know, so I'm not sure if the mortality rate is unnecessarily high.
> 
> If you want travel bans because of infectious diseases, you can rule out a huge chunk of countries in Africa and Asia. I think doctors specializing in infectious diseases know a bit more about this stuff than you, so I don't know why you call it incompetent quarantine, if you were even serious.
> 
> I don't think humanity will get wiped out by Ebola... But infectious diseases are a huge potential problem for us, with our global interconnectivity. Luckily, that's increased along with our medical knowledge and technology. Although the former is much less useful, until AI comes into the picture one day, hopefully. *crosses fingers*


The mortality rate of ebola is the issue here. Influenza is really only a risk to the elderly, and children. Ebola, however, has just recently had an outbreak, and though it is not as contagious as influenza, it is potentially more deadly. 

Yes, in the past, influenza was a more common killer than ebola. But, because of this outbreak, we're going to be seeing a lot more dead. There has already been an apartment complex quarantined, and 50 people who were in contact with that nurse and her hairdressers.

This may not seem that extreme at the moment, but because air traffic is not being blocked off, and appropriate quarantine measures aren't being placed in the early stages (Symptoms don't show until 2 - 3 weeks after infection.) Then it may take a few months to actually see the extent of the damage.


@MNiS: I don't know what your sources are, but from what I have heard, they have _not _been able to keep it contained, and have said that it is spreading faster than they're able to keep up.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Word Dispenser said:


> Yes, in the past, influenza was a more common killer than ebola. But, because of this outbreak, we're going to be seeing a lot more dead. There has already been an apartment complex quarantined, and 50 people who were in contact with that nurse and her hairdressers.


No, not past killer. Current, particularly in more poverty-stricken areas of the world. Along with other diseases that were wiped off the face of the West some time ago. 



Word Dispenser said:


> This may not seem that extreme at the moment, but because air traffic is not being blocked off, and appropriate quarantine measures aren't being placed in the early stages (Symptoms don't show until 2 - 3 weeks after infection.) Then it may take a few months to actually see the extent of the damage.


Hasn't the airborne ebola thing been thoroughly debunked? It's spread through fluid contact.

EDIT - Oh, I see you mean air travel. That would be wise from the affected African states. 

Those 50 Spanish people are "under observation" because they came into contact with ebola patients; they're not showing symptoms yet. So yes, proper quarantine measures are being taken before they show any symptoms. 

I don't think you understand that diseases exist that are just as bad or perhaps more worrisome than ebola, and have existed for decades. If you legitimately think ebola will blow up, why aren't you prepping for an apocalypse?


----------



## MNiS

Amaterasu said:


> No, I'm not. I think there's a time and place for you to have a smart mouth, and this isn't one of those times.


WTF. Read my response below.



Amaterasu said:


> You said that if I think my dual is an ugly, lazy jerk, either they aren't my dual or I'm being petty.


No, I said you assuming that I were referring to ugly and lazy jerks when I was referring to duality just to be contrary to me was petty, since I obviously wasn't referring to dating undesirable people. Because I wouldn't date a dual I thought who had those undesirable characteristics either. The fact that you picked an undesirable situation just so you could disagree with me was pettiness.


----------



## MNiS

Word Dispenser said:


> @_MNiS_: I don't know what your sources are, but from what I have heard, they have _not _been able to keep it contained, and have said that it is spreading faster than they're able to keep up.


Well then I guess we'll see in a few months whether or not things improve or not.


----------



## Word Dispenser

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Those 50 Spanish people are "under observation" because they came into contact with ebola patients; they're not showing symptoms yet. So yes, proper quarantine measures are being taken before they show any symptoms.
> 
> I don't think you understand that diseases exist that are just as bad or perhaps more worrisome than ebola, and have existed for decades. If you legitimately think ebola will blow up, why aren't you prepping for an apocalypse?


Yes, I do know that it is a fluid-contact carried disease. And if people cough, or sneeze in your vicinity, there's a ridiculously high chance of contagion. :kitteh: Not to mention wind as a factor.

Yes, there have been, and are, diseases which cause issues-- Perhaps even more than Ebola. But, at the moment, Ebola's what's been spreading, so it's a good idea to keep an eye on it, and to keep it contained. Just as if it were any other highly contagious disease.

Even when precautions have been taken, it has _still _spread. Such as in the case of the professional nurse. She protected herself, and still contracted it, which could actually point to a mutation. And even if it wasn't... The more it spreads, the more likelihood of a mutated strand.

As I said-- It'll take a few months to actually see the damage... And.. Well.. I don't usually get worried by much. 

At the moment, it hasn't spread where I'm at.

Even the prospect of an apocalypse-- Chaos, doom... It sounds kind of irrationally fun. Like watching a lightning storm. Just hope if it does happen, I'm swept up on the end of survivors and observation, rather than right in the middle of it.

Hope it doesn't happen, of course. And... It _probably _won't. But, still. I'm confident there _will _be more dead-- Which might be able to be prevented, if the right measures are taken. Which I also hope for.

And, don't worry. The fact that I contradicted myself continuously is pretty much par for the course. :kitteh:


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Word Dispenser said:


> Yes, I do know that it is a fluid-contact carried disease. And if people cough, or sneeze in your vicinity, there's a ridiculously high chance of contagion. :kitteh: Not to mention wind as a factor.
> 
> Yes, there have been, and are, diseases which cause issues-- Perhaps even more than Ebola. But, at the moment, Ebola's what's been spreading, so it's a good idea to keep an eye on it, and to keep it contained. Just as if it were any other highly contagious disease.
> 
> Even when precautions have been taken, it has _still _spread. Such as in the case of the professional nurse. She protected herself, and still contracted it, which could actually point to a mutation. And even if it wasn't... The more it spreads, the more likelihood of a mutated strand.
> 
> As I said-- It'll take a few months to actually see the damage... And.. Well.. I don't usually get worried by much.
> 
> At the moment, it hasn't spread where I'm at.
> 
> Even the prospect of an apocalypse-- Chaos, doom... It sounds kind of irrationally fun. Like watching a lightning storm. Just hope if it does happen, I'm swept up on the end of survivors and observation, rather than right in the middle of it.
> 
> Hope it doesn't happen, of course. And... It _probably _won't. But, still. I'm confident there _will _be more dead-- Which might be able to be prevented, if the right measures are taken. Which I also hope for.
> 
> And, don't worry. The fact that I contradicted myself continuously is pretty much par for the course. :kitteh:


Be careful when saying things with the word "air" in it involving ebola. I've already seen misleading headlines about it being airborne, when they really meant people with it have gotten on airplanes. :/

I also don't think that it can be contracted via cough or sneeze... That's airborne.

Also, again, blocking air travel from West Africa would be a great idea.


----------



## Word Dispenser

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Be careful when saying things with the word "air" in it involving ebola. I've already seen misleading headlines about it being airborne, when they really meant people with it have gotten on airplanes. :/
> 
> I also don't think that it can be contracted via cough or sneeze... That's airborne.
> 
> Also, again, blocking air travel from West Africa would be a great idea.


Cough or sneeze involves moisture which travels to the victims. If these particles get in contact with mucus membranes (by the moisture hitting hands, face, rubbing the eyes, getting into the nose, etc), there's infection. That's why they wear those suits, to prevent that. 

Influenza is airborne because it can travel long distances, whereas with ebola, once the liquid dries, the virus dies, which is why it's not airborne, traveling 1 - 2 metres (about as far as a cough or sneeze can send it) before it drops, falls to the ground, and dies, if it doesn't get in contact with someone. (Again, wind being a factor).

Annnd agreed. Let us encourage blocking air travel from West Africa. :kitteh:


----------



## MNiS

The current theme song for the Gamma Thread with all this ebola talk:






:wink:


----------



## MNiS

A song for the threatened honey bee:






Also, yes I know what the song means. But this is a tribute to the sickly honey bee! :wink:


----------



## Vermillion

MNiS said:


> No, I said you assuming that I were referring to ugly and lazy jerks when I was referring to duality just to be contrary to me was petty, since I obviously wasn't referring to dating undesirable people. Because I wouldn't date a dual I thought who had those undesirable characteristics either. The fact that you picked an undesirable situation just so you could disagree with me was pettiness.


Lol. Oh cause you're so radical and I'm so flustered I just pick something random to disagree with you about, right? Don't fool yourself. 

Go check what you wrote. You said "dual sex is pretty awesome" as if it's some sort of fact. Granted it could be just a personal opinion of yours, because convenient information exchange turns you on or whatever, so I asked you a light-hearted question in return to counter your "fact", whether or not that "fact" was seriously meant. Afterwards you responded by saying that if I think any dual of mine is ugly, lazy or a jerk, I'm either being "petty" or I'm not their dual. That's a ridiculous statement to make and I already explained why in my previous post; it has no theoretical basis. If you can't understand that I'm inclined to think you were simply trolling.


----------



## MNiS

Amaterasu said:


> Lol. Oh cause you're so radical and I'm so flustered I just pick something random to disagree with you about, right? Don't fool yourself.


I thought you were just being disagreeable more than anything. 



Amaterasu said:


> Go check what you wrote. You said "dual sex is pretty awesome" as if it's some sort of fact. Granted it could be just a personal opinion of yours, because convenient information exchange turns you on or whatever, so I asked you a light-hearted question in return to counter your "fact", whether or not that "fact" was seriously meant.


Well, I'm going off of what many other duals have stated on that other socionics forum (I used to browse that forum quite a bit between class or taking a "smoke break" while working) and personal experience. Plus there's the whole erotic attitudes part of socionics that tries to explain why temperament pairs are sexually compatible. Although I don't like the terms "infantile, caretaker" and "aggressor and victim" labels as one pair sounds gross and the other sounds more violent than in reality. Anyway, if you don't want to believe sex compatibility can be explained with Socionics, then don't. It's a controversial part of the theory anyway.

Although I do think it would be a good experiment to find out how sexually compatible conflictors are. Although I'm sure compatibility was more than likely one of the first things the Russians tested or at least surveyed when it came to Socionics. It'd be an interesting topic in any event.



Amaterasu said:


> Afterwards you responded by saying that if I think any dual of mine is ugly, lazy or a jerk, I'm either being "petty" or I'm not their dual. That's a ridiculous statement to make and I already explained why in my previous post; it has no theoretical basis. If you can't understand that I'm inclined to think you were simply trolling.


I was saying if you have such contempt for someone who you believe to be your dual then they likely aren't; as things like energy levels and motivations of your dual shouldn't bother you too much on a Socionics level. However, later on you were saying your dual behaving that way was upsetting you because they weren't living up to their potential. So your own subjective personal motivations would explain why you wrote what you did.

Because from personal experience, with every ILI I've come across, it was easy communication from day one without really much judgment. Maybe I've just been lucky and have only had prolonged interaction with ambitious Gammas and not many slack-off examples.


----------



## Kintsugi

I spent the weekend with a bunch of Si-egos. There seemed to be a lot of Ni-poLR; which I find I am now becoming increasingly infuriated by.

I feel drained. :bored:


----------



## Word Dispenser

Kintsugi said:


> I spent the weekend with a bunch of Si-egos.


Ooh, comfy. :kitteh:


----------



## Vermillion

MNiS said:


> I thought you were just being disagreeable more than anything.


Hearing something different from your opinion is just so hurtful, isn't it?



> Well, I'm going off of what many other duals have stated on that other socionics forum (I used to browse that forum quite a bit between class or taking a "smoke break" while working) and personal experience. Plus there's the whole erotic attitudes part of socionics that tries to explain why temperament pairs are sexually compatible. Although I don't like the terms "infantile, caretaker" and "aggressor and victim" labels as one pair sounds gross and the other sounds more violent than in reality. Anyway, if you don't want to believe sex compatibility can be explained with Socionics, then don't. It's a controversial part of the theory anyway.


The theory still does not account for every experience with every dual. It postulates many things about duality and interaction between duals, but this does not mean it is applicable in every situation of two duals interacting. I'll say it again, duality doesn't mean anything more than the smoothest ease of information exchange, and depending on the dual it may also present valuable perspectives for each person in the equation. However, duality is not a precursor to sexual/romantic compatibility. It's the other way round.



> I was saying if you have such contempt for someone who you believe to be your dual then they likely aren't; as things like energy levels and motivations of your dual shouldn't bother you too much on a Socionics level. However, later on you were saying your dual behaving that way was upsetting you because they weren't living up to their potential. So your own subjective personal motivations would explain why you wrote what you did.


"as things like energy levels and motivations of your dual shouldn't bother you too much on a Socionics level"

Unfortunately, everything in life isn't at "Socionics level". Socionics is an insightful theory at best and does not account for the difference in values of two theoretically compatible individuals, or the lack of chemistry between them. It is possible to have contempt for anyone of any type. Understanding what you communicate to each other doesn't automatically imply you agree with the content of the communication.

There is no subjectivity involved in saying that your postulate about this overly idealistic compatibility is not applicable. There is a line to draw between theory and real life.

Moreover, "living up to their potential" <-- wat. Not sure where the fuck you're getting this from, because it doesn't "upset" me when a dual isn't compatible with me. People are people first, and types later.


----------



## Kintsugi

Word Dispenser said:


> Ooh, comfy. :kitteh:


In a hot tub....jealous? :kitteh:


----------



## Abraxas

Right now I'm listening to this podcast by some dude on the internet who gets to interview Grant-fucking-Morrison at his house for four hours while smoking two joints with him and talking about comic books and shamanism and shit.

I would amputate my left-arm to smoke joints with Grant Morrison and talk about comic books and shamanism for four hours.

Fuck.


----------



## Vermillion

Abraxas said:


> I would amputate my left-arm to smoke joints with Grant Morrison and talk about comic books and shamanism for four hours.
> 
> Fuck.


Be careful what you wish for ^^


----------



## Abraxas

Amaterasu said:


> Be careful what you wish for ^^


Believe me, I am.

Grant Morrison, and Alan Moore are two individuals I've often fantasized about having a conversation with.

Or Peter J. Carroll, or Robert Anton Wilson (if he were still alive, RIP).

Or George Carlin, or Patton Oswalt.

Or Hitler.

Or Satan.

I'd totally get high with Hitler and Satan and talk about comic books and shamanism.

That'd be like, the best podcast ever.


----------



## Vermillion

Abraxas said:


> Believe me, I am.
> 
> Grant Morrison, and Alan Moore are two individuals I've often fantasized about having a conversation with.
> 
> Or Peter J. Carroll, or Robert Anton Wilson (if he were still alive, RIP).
> 
> Or George Carlin, or Patton Oswalt.
> 
> Or Hitler.
> 
> Or Satan.
> 
> I'd totally get high with Hitler and Satan and talk about comic books and shamanism.
> 
> That'd be like, the best podcast ever.


No, I'm sure.

I meant the part about losing your left arm. That wouldn't be nice, just for the sake of meeting some people. I read some story about someone who said "I'd give my right arm for my daughter to get cured" and they got in an accident and lost their arm, and their daughter actually got cured. It was in a popular book, so I doubt it was a lie, too. And I just got reminded of that :x


----------



## Entropic

Amaterasu said:


> No, I'm sure.
> 
> I meant the part about losing your left arm. That wouldn't be nice, just for the sake of meeting some people. I read some story about someone who said "I'd give my right arm for my daughter to get cured" and they got in an accident and lost their arm, and their daughter actually got cured. It was in a popular book, so I doubt it was a lie, too. And I just got reminded of that :x


And here I was thinking of Luke Skywalker and Jaime Lannister, though in their cases, the right arm.


----------



## tangosthenes

It really doesn't matter if you keep a healthy store of left arms.


----------



## Vermillion

Entropic said:


> And here I was thinking of Luke Skywalker and Jaime Lannister, though in their cases, the right arm.





tangosthenes said:


> It really doesn't matter if you keep a healthy store of left arms.


Man, seeing as I've been reading Tokyo Ghoul all day, this conversation is starting to scare me... Change topic, please.


----------



## Abraxas

So, I've been thinking of playing Deus Ex: Human Revolution again.

I never really played it the first time. I just got up to the part where they replace his arms with cybernetic ones.


----------



## wei1006

Hi. ILI here.


----------



## MNiS

Amaterasu said:


> Hearing something different from your opinion is just so hurtful, isn't it?


No, differing opinions are fine, and in fact they're great because it allows you to see things you may not have considered before. I just think your arguments are based on misconstruing what I said which is why I think you're just being disagreeable rather than having any valid points.



Amaterasu said:


> The theory still does not account for every experience with every dual. It postulates many things about duality and interaction between duals, but this does not mean it is applicable in every situation of two duals interacting. I'll say it again, duality doesn't mean anything more than the smoothest ease of information exchange, and depending on the dual it may also present valuable perspectives for each person in the equation. However, duality is not a precursor to sexual/romantic compatibility. It's the other way round.


You're confusing the effect for the cause.



Amaterasu said:


> "as things like energy levels and motivations of your dual shouldn't bother you too much on a Socionics level"
> 
> Unfortunately, everything in life isn't at "Socionics level". Socionics is an insightful theory at best and does not account for the difference in values of two theoretically compatible individuals, or the lack of chemistry between them. It is possible to have contempt for anyone of any type. Understanding what you communicate to each other doesn't automatically imply you agree with the content of the communication.


Hahah well, doesn't duality explain things like chemistry?  The times when it would fall flat on its face would be instances where there were simply no physical attraction, the intelligence gap is too great or one or both persons were simply too intolerant. I think I've already stated this before. However, if you want to continue to say it's because "people are people" then go right ahead. I happen to think intertype relationships explain relationship quality (Because it does!).



Amaterasu said:


> There is no subjectivity involved in saying that your postulate about this overly idealistic compatibility is not applicable. There is a line to draw between theory and real life.


I suppose you think that because Socionics is just theory then you should be perfectly happy with your conflictor in an intimate relationship? Don't be ridiculous! Anyway, I don't disagree when you say later that people are people, but that in no way precludes people from being a type as well. The two aren't mutually exclusive and to say intertype relationships don't really matter because people are people is simply a lazy cop-out due to an unwillingness, inability or fear of entertaining the idea that relationship patterns exist between the types.



Amaterasu said:


> Moreover, "living up to their potential" <-- wat. Not sure where the fuck you're getting this from, because it doesn't "upset" me when a dual isn't compatible with me. People are people first, and types later.


You've never heard the saying before? It means to make full use of your talents and abilities. Usually to the benefit of society, family and/or friends. As a car analogy, say you bought a race car just to drive it to and from work. You wouldn't be using the car to its full potential in that situation. Driving it quickly and aggressively would be closer to more fully utilizing the car's potential and driving the car on a track at it's or beyond its capabilities would be fully utilizing its potential.


----------



## The Exception

I disagree about most people being just average and not having much in the way of talents or abilities. Now if you pick one particular skill at random, most people will hover around the mean in terms of ability with just a handful at the outliers, that's true. But if you look at all possible skills and abilities out there, you will find that people are no longer so average, there are skills for which individuals are really good at, well above the mean. 

I have creative and valued Ne, so its natural for me to see potential in people and to find what skills people have to offer.


----------



## Abraxas

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> I disagree about most people being just average and not having much in the way of talents or abilities. Now if you pick one particular skill at random, most people will hover around the mean in terms of ability with just a handful at the outliers, that's true. But if you look at all possible skills and abilities out there, you will find that people are no longer so average, there are skills for which individuals are really good at, well above the mean.
> 
> I have creative and valued Ne, so its natural for me to see potential in people and to find what skills people have to offer.


Lol.

Because everyone is a special snowflake.

... In a blizzard.


----------



## Vermillion

MNiS said:


> No, differing opinions are fine, and in fact they're great because it allows you to see things you may not have considered before. I just think your arguments are based on misconstruing what I said which is why I think you're just being disagreeable rather than having any valid points.


Lmao. If I had to note your reaction to me disagreeing with you, I think anyone would assume I pricked a vein of yours. I highly recommend going and reading what you said at the start. If you'd like, I can copy and paste that for you to show you how ridiculous it sounds. No one is interested in disagreeing with you for the sake of it. But if you're going to say unverified nonsense about the theory then _expect _to be disagreed with. 



> You're confusing the effect for the cause.


No, I'm not. I stated a pretty obvious fact about all typology theories in general; typological compatibility only applies up to a certain threshold. If you don't understand that, you have the wrong approach to typology. 



> Hahah well, doesn't duality explain things like chemistry?  The times when it would fall flat on its face would be instances where there were simply no physical attraction, the intelligence gap is too great or one or both persons were simply too intolerant. I think I've already stated this before.


Wow, contradicting yourself. Let's see here...

"The times when it would fall flat on its face would be instances where there were simply no physical attraction, the intelligence gap is too great or one or both persons were simply too intolerant."

But let's see what you said before.



Amaterasu said:


> Someone being your dual doesn't exclude them from being an ugly, lazy jerk though.





 MNiS said:


> Also, if you have such contempt for someone who is supposedly your dual then you're either being petty or you two aren't duals.





MNiS said:


> I was saying if you have such contempt for someone who you believe to be your dual then they likely aren't; as things like energy levels and motivations of your dual shouldn't bother you too much on a Socionics level.


At first you said the magic of duality would cause a person to overlook all these undesirable factors such as energy levels, motivations, physical unattractiveness, etc. And now you say that even duality can't surpass these factors because these factors come first. Stop running around in circles and maybe I'll be happy to listen to you talk.



> However, if you want to continue to say it's because "people are people" then go right ahead. I happen to think intertype relationships explain relationship quality (Because it does!).


Blanket statement that in no way accounts for the several assumptions you have made about duality and intertype in general. Unless you want to say that "relationship quality" means intertype compatibility 



> I suppose you think that because Socionics is just theory then you should be perfectly happy with your conflictor in an intimate relationship? Don't be ridiculous!


The number of assumptions in this is making me yawn. I urge you to go trawl my previous posts and try to find out where I said this. 



> Anyway, I don't disagree when you say later that people are people, but that in no way precludes people from being a type as well. The two aren't mutually exclusive and to say intertype relationships don't really matter because people are people is simply a lazy cop-out due to an unwillingness, inability or fear of entertaining the idea that relationship patterns exist between the types.


Stop bullshitting me, MNiS. Did you even try to read what I said? Here, let me paste it for you in bold: 

*People are people first, and types later.

*You literally just read the first half of this sentence, ignored the second half, and you're saying things out of control about "unwillingness", "inability", "fear" and all sorts of negative labels. Seriously, leave this argument right now if you are incapable of arguing consistently.



> You've never heard the saying before? It means to make full use of your talents and abilities etc etc etc.


Everyone and their mom has heard this saying before. However, I never used this saying in my posts to you and wasn't even interested in discussing "potential" as you earlier said:



MNiS said:


> _However, later on you were saying your dual behaving that way was upsetting you because they weren't living up to their potential._





Amaterasu said:


> Moreover, "living up to their potential" <-- wat. Not sure where the fuck you're getting this from, because it doesn't "upset" me when a dual isn't compatible with me.


It's, unsurprisingly, another assumption you drew.


----------



## Vermillion

Abraxas said:


> Lol.
> 
> Because everyone is a special snowflake.
> 
> ... In a blizzard.


That was such a smart thing to say. Can I reproduce this in my conversations with others? I'm so going to.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> I disagree about most people being just average and not having much in the way of talents or abilities. Now if you pick one particular skill at random, most people will hover around the mean in terms of ability with just a handful at the outliers, that's true. But if you look at all possible skills and abilities out there, you will find that people are no longer so average, there are skills for which individuals are really good at, well above the mean.
> 
> I have creative and valued Ne, so its natural for me to see potential in people and to find what skills people have to offer.


Hmm, well... Although I use a pretty strong, karazy Ne... I _do _see a lot of people with _wasted _potential. I don't think most people _do _have a lot of talents/abilities/skills to offer-- Mostly because these people don't really realize that they even _have _the potential.

I see a lot of people going, "I'm not a math person." Or, "I can draw stick people... And that's it." Proudly, as if their exaggerated humility and lack of ability were something to share in joyous occasion.

The truth is, there's no such thing as a 'math person' or an 'artsy person'. It's just where your interest lies, and what your time is spent with.

I honestly would like to hammer people with the (figurative) Spatula of Clarity when they talk like that. "Yes, you _can _draw more than just stick people! Just sit down and F¤#%#ing _do _it! Get better! Improve! Everyone starts out drawing stick people!"

Or: "_YEs _you _can _do math! Just sit down and _do _it. Learn it. Figure it out. Take the time."

Chuh.

/End. Rant.


----------



## Entropic

@Abraxas it keeps bugging me you got Hei as your avatar... catches me off-guard all the time.


----------



## Kintsugi

I'm having a bit of a bad day. Feeling a little lost and defeated....a little bit like it would be easy to just give up at this point.

My bf (ILI), says to me;

_"when I look at you, I don't just see you as you are; I also see who you can be and I know you'll be able to handle this stuff one day. That's why I'm not worried"
_
I'm like, wtf?! And demand that he demonstrates exactly HOW it is that he KNOWS this. He tells me that it's based on his own observations of me, his own personal model. He simply says,_ "It's a calculation, but all I have to do is wait for you to get better. And that will ​happen."
_
Naturally, I'm a little skeptical about this.  

He goes on to add; _"models are rarely wrong, it's their inputs that are usually wrong";_

to which I point out; "well, shit models exist," (lol).

He explains that models that have been verified are rarely wrong, because,_ "the world is not completely random, there are ​patterns in it. The models are simply formalization's of those patterns."
_
I demand how this model has been verified...

he says, _"the model is my understanding of how you function and had been verified through all of my experiences of you."_

I'm still unconvinced and point out that it could still be wrong.

_"True,"_ he says,_ "but it's unlikely. The model is accurate for the range of input data its been verified with; its only data outside that range that causes problems."_

<end of conversation>


For some reason, all of this is strangely comforting to me. :kitteh:


----------



## Abraxas

Kintsugi said:


> I'm having a bit of a bad day. Feeling a little lost and defeated....a little bit like it would be easy to just give up at this point.
> 
> My bf (ILI), says to me;
> 
> _"when I look at you, I don't just see you as you are; I also see who you can be and I know you'll be able to handle this stuff one day. That's why I'm not worried"
> _
> I'm like, wtf?! And demand that he demonstrates exactly HOW it is that he KNOWS this. He tells me that it's based on his own observations of me, his own personal model. He simply says,_ "It's a calculation, but all I have to do is wait for you to get better. And that will ​happen."
> _
> Naturally, I'm a little skeptical about this.
> 
> He goes on to add; _"models are rarely wrong, it's their inputs that are usually wrong";_
> 
> to which I point out; "well, shit models exist," (lol).
> 
> He explains that models that have been verified are rarely wrong, because,_ "the world is not completely random, there are ​patterns in it. The models are simply formalization's of those patterns."
> _
> I demand how this model has been verified...
> 
> he says, _"the model is my understanding of how you function and had been verified through all of my experiences of you."_
> 
> I'm still unconvinced and point out that it could still be wrong.
> 
> _"True,"_ he says,_ "but it's unlikely. The model is accurate for the range of input data its been verified with; its only data outside that range that causes problems."_
> 
> <end of conversation>
> 
> 
> For some reason, all of this is strangely comforting to me. :kitteh:



I think it's kind of endearing that he took the time to try and explain himself to you. That's pretty cool.

I would've been like, "don't worry about it." Because on the one hand, I really relate to what he's saying to you, I perceive and think about people the same way (especially the ones I've loved), but unlike your SO I find it hard to be convincing or even very rational when it comes to explaining my convictions.

In my past relationships this has caused problems, because she/he (I've dated both) might be feeling insecure, and I'll do my best to be reassuring by looking at the situation, analyzing it, and then giving my perspective on it, but then they want me to convince them and it's like... forcing myself to go out and exercise or something. It's that same feeling. Like, knowing you really should force yourself, but being too lazy and putting it off.


----------



## Kintsugi

Abraxas said:


> I think it's kind of endearing that he took the time to try and explain himself to you. That's pretty cool.
> 
> I would've been like, "don't worry about it." Because on the one hand, I really relate to what he's saying to you, I perceive and think about people the same way (especially the ones I've loved), but unlike your SO I find it hard to be convincing or even very rational when it comes to explaining my convictions.
> 
> In my past relationships this has caused problems, because she/he (I've dated both) might be feeling insecure, and I'll do my best to be reassuring by looking at the situation, analyzing it, and then giving my perspective on it, but then they want me to convince them and it's like... forcing myself to go out and exercise or something. It's that same feeling. Like, knowing you really should force yourself, but being too lazy and putting it off.


You probably make more sense than you realize. Well, at least to an Se-dominant. ^_^


----------



## Entropic

@Abraxas is Deus Ex any good? Like, is it your typical Western RPG that pretends to give freedom of choice but then really doesn't? Been thinking about getting it.


----------



## Abraxas

Entropic said:


> @_Abraxas_ is Deus Ex any good? Like, is it your typical Western RPG that pretends to give freedom of choice but then really doesn't? Been thinking about getting it.


It's your typical Western RPG unfortunately.


----------



## tangosthenes

deus ex is pretty average. it's good if you're look for something sci fi and futuristic to even out your days.


----------



## MNiS

Amaterasu said:


> Lmao. If I had to note your reaction to me disagreeing with you, I think anyone would assume I pricked a vein of yours. I highly recommend going and reading what you said at the start. If you'd like, I can copy and paste that for you to show you how ridiculous it sounds. No one is interested in disagreeing with you for the sake of it. But if you're going to say unverified nonsense about the theory then _expect _to be disagreed with.


Blah blah blah. I could throw the very same accusations back at you. Do you have any proof that Socionics is irrelevant? No, that's just your own stupid opinion which also happens to be wrong.



Amaterasu said:


> No, I'm not. I stated a pretty obvious fact about all typology theories in general; typological compatibility only applies up to a certain threshold. If you don't understand that, you have the wrong approach to typology.


If you think that relationship compatibility is what dictates your type then yeah, I'd say you're ass backwards on that one.



Amaterasu said:


> Wow, contradicting yourself. Let's see here...
> 
> "The times when it would fall flat on its face would be instances where there were simply no physical attraction, the intelligence gap is too great or one or both persons were simply too intolerant."
> 
> But let's see what you said before.


Where's the contradiction?



Amaterasu said:


> At first you said the magic of duality would cause a person to overlook all these undesirable factors such as energy levels, motivations, physical unattractiveness, etc. And now you say that even duality can't surpass these factors because these factors come first. Stop running around in circles and maybe I'll be happy to listen to you talk.


See, there you go again. Misunderstanding or misconstruing what I wrote in order to spew out some more bullshit. I never said duality will make you overlook undesirable factors. That's an assumption that you made. I told you repeatedly that if you're looking for your dual then you should be looking for someone of similar quality to yourself. How one defines 'quality' is really specific to the person.



Amaterasu said:


> Blanket statement that in no way accounts for the several assumptions you have made about duality and intertype in general. Unless you want to say that "relationship quality" means intertype compatibility
> 
> The number of assumptions in this is making me yawn. I urge you to go trawl my previous posts and try to find out where I said this.


Uh huh.



Amaterasu said:


> Stop bullshitting me, MNiS. Did you even try to read what I said? Here, let me paste it for you in bold:
> 
> *People are people first, and types later.*


*
*
Regarding the bolded line, yes, I told you that's just a lazy way to think. Obviously, your type doesn't describe every aspect of who you are. However, what your type does tell you is which other types you will likely get along with or not get along with. You're the one arguing that people are too individual to say that the intertype relations to be correct. I'm telling you that you're wrong. I'm saying not only are you wrong but that if you can figure out your Socionics type then you will know your intertype relations. Is that difficult for you to understand? Maybe you should just forsake Socionics altogether otherwise. *

*


Amaterasu said:


> You literally just read the first half of this sentence, ignored the second half, and you're saying things out of control about "unwillingness", "inability", "fear" and all sorts of negative labels. Seriously, leave this argument right now if you are incapable of arguing consistently.


If you think that burying your head in the sand is in any way a positive quality then I don't know what to tell you.



Amaterasu said:


> Everyone and their mom has heard this saying before. However, I never used this saying in my posts to you and wasn't even interested in discussing "potential" as you earlier said:


Well hey, you're the one who apparently didn't know what I was talking about.



Amaterasu said:


> It's, unsurprisingly, another assumption you drew.


If you knew what the phrase meant and you still didn't know what I was saying then you're just an idiot. Because the phrase was a perfect way to describe the way you were describing. Like I was saying: If you have that much contempt for your dual then chances are _one of both of you are mistyped or possibly not duals at all._ That's the bottom line. I'm not trying to say you will only ever get along with your dual, but if you don't like a person who is your supposed dual for the reasons that you listed (too lazy and apathetic) then it's time to reconsider the relationship type. Precisely because if you get the idea of valued elements, then you shouldn't be angry at your supposed dual for those qualities.

However, I get the impression there's some other factors at play that's causing the resentment. This isn't Amaterasu and Entropic's therapy session though, so I'm not even going to go there.


----------



## MNiS

:mellow:


----------



## Word Dispenser

MNiS said:


> If you knew what the phrase meant and you still didn't know what I was saying then you're just an idiot. Because the phrase was a perfect way to describe the way you were describing. Like I was saying: If you have that much contempt for your dual then chances are _one of both of you are mistyped or possibly not duals at all._ That's the bottom line. I'm not trying to say you will only ever get along with your dual, but if you don't like a person who is your supposed dual for the reasons that you listed (too lazy and apathetic) then it's time to reconsider the relationship type. Precisely because if you get the idea of valued elements, then you shouldn't be angry at your supposed dual for those qualities.


Who's to say that one cannot feel contempt for their dual? Duals can have vastly differing interests and goals. Thus, conflict appears, resentment can mount... Every relationship runs this risk.

Just as Conflictors can get past their cognitive barriers through compromise and understanding-- And even to have an initial attraction based upon idealizing the person. And this is particularly easy to do if they both have the same interests and goals.

I think the problem, a lot of the time, is people taking typology far too seriously. There is no rule to end all rules-- There's nothing that says you will absolutely get along with every single individual that is your Dual, or you will clash with every single person that is your Conflictor. That's just hokum.

It's easier to understand people through cognition, and it's probably more _likely _that if you run across your dual, you will _probably _like the person. There's a lot to consider, however.

Ages, for one. That's actually a fairly significant factor. The respective individual's ages can create a rather large gap-- Even just maturity. Culture. Social politics.

And... Ultimately-- If you define certain characteristics as 'horrible'-- They're not excluded from your dual.

I get that you're going occam's razor on the subject-- It may be simpler to say that someone is mistyped than to say that they have a dual that they dislike. But, I think that this particular subject requires a bit more critical thinking.


----------



## MNiS

Word Dispenser said:


> Who's to say that one cannot feel contempt for their dual? Duals can have vastly differing interests and goals. Thus, conflict appears, resentment can mount... Every relationship runs this risk.


Okay fair enough. One can certainly feel contempt for their dual for non-Socionics reasons. However, the reasons listed by Amaterasu weren't non-Socionics reasons. If you thought your dual were too ugly, unintelligent, fat or the wrong religion, etc; that would be one thing, but to say that you don't like your dual because you think that they're unambitious and lazy then yeah that's when you should consider that perhaps it isn't duality.



Word Dispenser said:


> Just as Conflictors can get past their cognitive barriers through compromise and understanding-- And even to have an initial attraction based upon idealizing the person. And this is particularly easy to do if they both have the same interests and goals.


Okay, yeah. Conflictors can work through their differences. Especially if both understand as much and want to work through their barriers. However, Socionics says that will always be more work and energy to accomplish than to do the same with your dual. I'm not saying it's impossible, because successful conflicting relationships certainly are possible; but to me, striving to be in a relationship where understanding one another is on easy mode seems more desirable than being with someone where it's stuck on permanent hard mode.



Word Dispenser said:


> I think the problem, a lot of the time, is people taking typology far too seriously. There is no rule to end all rules-- There's nothing that says you will absolutely get along with every single individual that is your Dual, or you will clash with every single person that is your Conflictor. That's just hokum.


Sure, I agree.



Word Dispenser said:


> It's easier to understand people through cognition, and it's probably more _likely _that if you run across your dual, you will _probably _like the person. There's a lot to consider, however.
> 
> Ages, for one. That's actually a fairly significant factor. The respective individual's ages can create a rather large gap-- Even just maturity. Culture. Social politics.


To be honest, I agreed with you initially but age, a person's cultural background, social standing and political views can be both repellant or appealing to a person depending on how that person views such criteria. So for the most part you may be correct but it really can go either way.



Word Dispenser said:


> And... Ultimately-- If you define certain characteristics as 'horrible'-- They're not excluded from your dual.


Would you care to provide an example?



Word Dispenser said:


> I get that you're going occam's razor on the subject-- It may be simpler to say that someone is mistyped than to say that they have a dual that they dislike. But, I think that this particular subject requires a bit more critical thinking.


Well it certainly makes more sense than to try to argue that Socionics is therefore invalid.


----------



## Word Dispenser

> ...But to say that you don't like your dual because you think that they're unambitious and lazy


How is that _really _any different? 

Aren't those just behaviours? 

A person can be unambitious due to a lack of interest-- And pretty much everyone is lazy. That's how we biologically are designed... Thus, I don't see these as necessarily cognitively derived.

Behaviours are just the offshoot of the cognition. It can be tricky to discern between the two, though. And being unambitious is usually deep-seated, at least.



MNiS said:


> Would you care to provide an example?


Sure. Let's say... You find 'rudeness' to be horrible. Of course we have to ask, "How would _you _define rudeness?" But, I'm going to assume you already have a definition in mind.

Now, based on one's environment and upbringing, one can be rude, or polite, and be either Fe or Fi. There can be identical _behaviour, _but differing _cognition. _Thus-- Your dual can be the rudest person you ever met, but still be your dual. And you can clash immensely because this behaviour will grate on your sensibilities.

It's a simple example-- I hope it's also effective.



> Well it certainly makes more sense than to try to argue that Socionics is therefore invalid.


I don't think anyone is saying that. I just think that all variables need to be weighed before one can come to a definitive conclusion about what dynamics are causing conflict in a relationship. (And, well, for me.. Definitive conclusions are kind of avoided anyway, so if you want a definitive conclusion, go to someone else... And I'll still say they're wrong. roud


----------



## MNiS

Word Dispenser said:


> How is that _really _any different?
> 
> Aren't those just behaviours?


No, they're not behaviors. They're value judgements which is an area that's certainly relatable to Socionics, especially among the quadras which should have values that are at least understandable to one another. Sure, there are outliers like quasi-identicals of similar status will seem to have accomplished more enviable things in the eyes of one another, but things like that are just Socionics quirks.



Word Dispenser said:


> And being unambitious is usually deep-seated, at least.


Being unambitious is certainly different than being defeated by life though which is what I think you're more closely describing rather than a lack of ambition.



Word Dispenser said:


> Sure. Let's say... You find 'rudeness' to be horrible. Of course we have to ask, "How would _you _define rudeness?" But, I'm going to assume you already have a definition in mind.
> 
> Now, based on one's environment and upbringing, one can be rude, or polite, and be either Fe or Fi. There can be identical _behaviour, _but differing _cognition. _Thus-- Your dual can be the rudest person you ever met, but still be your dual. And you can clash immensely because this behaviour will grate on your sensibilities.
> 
> It's a simple example-- I hope it's also effective.


Well, yeah I guess you have a valid point there. Extremely toxic behaviors could easily end an otherwise fine dual relationship. That would be for non-Socionics reasons though.



Word Dispenser said:


> I don't think anyone is saying that. I just think that all variables need to be weighed before one can come to a definitive conclusion about what dynamics are causing conflict in a relationship. (And, well, for me.. Definitive conclusions are kind of avoided anyway, so if you want a definitive conclusion, go to someone else... And I'll still say they're wrong. roud


You'd be surprised how many people who're critical of Socionics make that leap in logic. I'm not referring to anyone in particular, but it's just one of the more poorly thought out reasons that I've noticed dismissive critics use.


----------



## Word Dispenser

MNiS said:


> Extremely toxic behaviors could easily end an otherwise fine dual relationship. That would be for non-Socionics reasons though.


Well, why would we need to be discussing 'Socionics reasons', anyway? Why isn't it relevant if it's associated?
The reasons why two people might not get along is probably relevant to this Socionics discussion in particular. Especially considering the guarantees people are expecting when it comes to relations, when first getting into the theories. 

All of these 'non-Socionics reasons' should be accounted for when analyzing relations between people as well; it all encompasses aspects of psychology which Socionics may not be able to cover, but some will claim that it does.

Afterall, @Amaterasu's claim was that there's more to someone's relationship than Socionics/typology, which I do agree with. That's why I hopped in, essentially. I'm paraphrasing though, so lemme know if I got that wrong.


----------



## MNiS

Word Dispenser said:


> Well, why would we need to be discussing 'Socionics reasons', anyway? Why isn't it relevant if it's associated?
> The reasons why two people might not get along is probably relevant to this Socionics discussion in particular. Especially considering the guarantees people are expecting when it comes to relations, when first getting into the theories.


This is exactly what I was arguing with Amaterasu about. Because Socionics doesn't explain _everything_ about a person, it doesn't explain their cultural background, upbringing, etc. That was not a topic that either of us were disagreeing on except on a few specifics where she argues to disregard Socionics because some aspect of her flawed understanding doesn't fit when I'm trying to tell her she's not understanding it properly.



Word Dispenser said:


> All of these 'non-Socionics reasons' should be accounted for when analyzing relations between people as well; it all encompasses aspects of psychology which Socionics may not be able to cover, but some will claim that it does.


No they shouldn't, because then you'll have people coming up with poor arguments using spaghetti logic to force fit everything relationship related into being about Socionics. That would do a disservice to the theory and would make it seem like nothing more than a joke because obviously the entirety of relationships isn't Socionics. It's not going to predict which restaurant your dual would like. It's not going to predict their favorite color. Etc.



Word Dispenser said:


> Afterall, @_Amaterasu_'s claim was that there's more to someone's relationship than Socionics/typology, which I do agree with. That's why I hopped in, essentially. I'm paraphrasing though, so lemme know if I got that wrong.


----------



## Schweeeeks

MNiS said:


> It's not going to predict which restaurant your dual would like. It's not going to predict their favorite color. Etc.


Betas like it hot! ;D
So yeah Mexican food, Indian food or a place where food is served by strippers.


----------



## MNiS

Schweeeeks said:


> Betas like it hot! ;D
> So yeah Mexican food, Indian food or a place where food is served by strippers.


Hey, so do I.  Ooooh, you mean spicy _and _steamy. Gotcha, heh.

I'd say Gammas like it pricey and an event or just plain 'ol fun with your friends. I personally like low-key places that no one but people in the know would frequent. I like little secret places and hidden gems.  Consider me snobby like that. XD


----------



## Abraxas

I'm pretty sure it's conceivable that someone could be my socionics dual and simultaneously be suffering some kind of DSM-V classified disorder that causes sufficient dissonance in their outward behavior to cause me discomfort, and therefore result in me either disliking or avoiding that person.

I think in the above scenario it's fair to say that their disorder is really the control variable in the equation of whether or not I'm going to find myself compatible with that person or not... not their socionics type. In that scenario you could basically disregard socionics entirely. It's not a factor at all. The control variable is their disorder, not their sociotype. Their sociotype would be an independent variable.

Or perhaps I might have come across my dual in a bad way. Maybe they were in a bad mood, or depressed, or whatever. It could just be circumstantial. And then I go and invoke the _*fundamental attribution error*_ and my fatalistic intuition associates that state of mind to an ongoing pattern of behavior, and I'm like "nope" and just deuce.

In that scenario, the control variable was my response to the conditions of the environment, so it was really just me, not them. Again, their sociotype was really never part of the equation. Socionics would just be a bunch of independent variables - the one constant variable is the way my own subjective intuition interpreted the situation, and so as long as that situation (the environment) and my reaction remains a constant, then their sociotype is irrelevant.


----------



## Word Dispenser

MNiS said:


> No they shouldn't, because then you'll have people coming up with poor arguments using spaghetti logic to force fit everything relationship related into being about Socionics. That would do a disservice to the theory and would make it seem like nothing more than a joke because obviously the entirety of relationships isn't Socionics. It's not going to predict which restaurant your dual would like. It's not going to predict their favorite color. Etc.


But, this is exactly _why _you _should _discuss _all _aspects-- And be certain to maintain a distinction between Socionics systems and that which falls outside. For the very reason that people _do _get it all mixed up. 

By leading by example, and _explaining _the differences, people no longer rely so heavily on the theory, by learning to distinguish what isn't related to it.

For example: When I said that you would _probably _like your dual, I add that it also depends on outside factors. That's important. If I didn't include that, then individuals might make erroneous intuitive leaps, and start concluding,"I MUST FIND MY DUAL. SOUL MAAAATE, COME TO MEEE!"


----------



## The Exception

Schweeeeks said:


> Betas like it hot! ;D
> So yeah Mexican food, Indian food or a place where food is served by strippers.



Beta's favorite color has gotta be red. It's hot! It's fiery! Passionate and intense! Watch a beta get angry, they literally get red in the face! :angry:


----------



## Vermillion

@_MNiS_

Ok, dude, I'm going to spell it out for you in simple language so you stop finding excuses to call people stupid (which, incidentally, this isn't the first instance of, on this forum. So I'm not sure how seriously I should take you, when this could just be you running your mouth). I suggest you reconsider a) the opinion you're espousing, and b) your attitude.

You began by saying "dual sex is awesome, which is another reason to get your sociotype right" and I find that a misplaced opinion to have because duality doesn't indicate sexual or romantic compatibility. So I asked you if you would still like a dual if other things about them were unattractive, because I don't believe duality always supercedes other factors. However, you decided to say that it's not possible to have that much "contempt" for someone who is your dual, referring to those unattractive qualities I mentioned as an expression of contempt. This is echoed in the quote I have pasted below. However, later (and even below your previous post, to @_Word Dispenser_) you said that considering someone ugly or too different from you IS actually something that can make you dislike them despite sociotype compatibility. This is contradictory. 

Further, to WD, you clarified that you can find a dual unattractive for myriad reasons, but it is impossible to consider them unambitious and lazy because... they're your duals, right?! I beg to differ here; duality will not make you necessarily agree with someone's lifestyle choices or the paths they choose to walk in life.



MNiS said:


> If you knew what the phrase meant and you still didn't know what I was saying then you're just an idiot. Because the phrase was a perfect way to describe the way you were describing. Like I was saying: If you have that much contempt for your dual then chances are _one of both of you are mistyped or possibly not duals at all._ That's the bottom line. I'm not trying to say you will only ever get along with your dual, but if you don't like a person who is your supposed dual for the reasons that you listed (too lazy and apathetic) then it's time to reconsider the relationship type. Precisely because if you get the idea of valued elements, then you shouldn't be angry at your supposed dual for those qualities.


I think your idea of "valued elements" is pretty fucked up if it involves thinking a dual is incapable of being perceived lazy. Being lazy is something human and people are lazy/hardworking to different degrees. An ambitious person may not enjoy or be attracted to the company of a partygoer, even if communication between them is otherwise smooth due to duality. 

Fyi, duals are fucking human. They have flaws and quirks and sometimes these make or break (existing or potential) relationships more than ease of information exchange does. If you think sociotype is always more important than these preferences when judging people and their compatibility, I suggest you avoid Socionics, or at least go revise your understanding of the theory. I think @_Abraxas_ said it pretty well when he talked about control variables in relationships and the perception of attractiveness. 

If you're going to attribute any further aspects of compatibility to duality, then I think it's being unrealistic and idealizing a theory too much. Here's a convenient warning from Bukalov, a Socionist, about avoiding that trap (thanks @_Pancreatic Pandora_ for this quote):


> O.K. - In order to separate relationships from their information component.
> A.B. - Yes, information interaction and how relationships feel subjectively are not exactly the same.





MNiS said:


> However, I get the impression there's some other factors at play that's causing the resentment. This isn't Amaterasu and Entropic's therapy session though, so I'm not even going to go there.


So I got your knickers in such a twist that you had to bring in the possibility of my relationship (something that, might I remind you, we were NOT originally discussing) being fucked up, for you to seem like the bigger person. Wow dude, I recommend you revise your definitions of respect and maturity because your aggression is getting a little too babyish here, trying to target everything in sight. Until then, please exclude me from your venting.


----------



## Entropic

MNiS said:


> However, I get the impression there's some other factors at play that's causing the resentment. This isn't Amaterasu and Entropic's therapy session though, so I'm not even going to go there.


WTF, I completely missed this so spell out to me, what duality problems do we have? Bad sex? You already went there, fyi, just by mentioning it and bringing it up. Makes me wonder what relationship problems you _have_ though, for even going there.


----------



## Abraxas

This is why I love the Socionics forum here the best now: there's way more personal discussions here than I've seen on the other forums (that I hang out in).

It's kind of a warm fuzzy feeling when I see it. Everyone cares about each other so much. It's really endearing.


----------



## MNiS

Word Dispenser said:


> But, this is exactly _why _you _should _discuss _all _aspects-- And be certain to maintain a distinction between Socionics systems and that which falls outside. For the very reason that people _do _get it all mixed up.


Okay, I can agree with that. What I have a major problem with is when someone becomes so enamored by the theory that they try to make everything about Socionics. Like when a child discovers a hammer then suddenly everything becomes a nail. It's not going to end well despite how much that child wants everything to be a nail. 



Word Dispenser said:


> By leading by example, and _explaining _the differences, people no longer rely so heavily on the theory, by learning to distinguish what isn't related to it.


Uh-huh. I'd suggest you go out and meet people then instead of talking to strangers online. 



Word Dispenser said:


> For example: When I said that you would _probably _like your dual, I add that it also depends on outside factors. That's important. If I didn't include that, then individuals might make erroneous intuitive leaps, and start concluding,"I MUST FIND MY DUAL. SOUL MAAAATE, COME TO MEEE!"


Um, the _very_ first thing written in every dual description is that *they are not your soul mate and will not be the only one who can ever complete you*. That kind of sappy romanticism is better left for people who would shun Socionics anyway in favor of ignorance. I think Socionics pretty much concludes that your dual is pretty much interchangable with any other dual provided they're capable of meeting whatever non-Socionics criteria you may have. Sounds kind of dehumanizing but at that point it's best to step away from the computer/Socionics and actually go interact with people because it doesn't substitute things like personal loyalty, fond memories, experiences shared, love, etcetc. 



Amaterasu said:


> @_MNiS_
> 
> Ok, dude, I'm going to spell it out for you in simple language so you stop finding excuses to call people stupid (which, incidentally, this isn't the first instance of, on this forum. So I'm not sure how seriously I should take you, when this could just be you running your mouth). I suggest you reconsider a) the opinion you're espousing, and b) your attitude.
> 
> You began by saying "dual sex is awesome, which is another reason to get your sociotype right" and I find that a misplaced opinion to have because duality doesn't indicate sexual or romantic compatibility. So I asked you if you would still like a dual if other things about them were unattractive, because I don't believe duality always supercedes other factors. However, you decided to say that it's not possible to have that much "contempt" for someone who is your dual, referring to those unattractive qualities I mentioned as an expression of contempt. This is echoed in the quote I have pasted below. However, later (and even below your previous post, to @_Word Dispenser_) you said that considering someone ugly or too different from you IS actually something that can make you dislike them despite sociotype compatibility. This is contradictory.
> 
> Further, to WD, you clarified that you can find a dual unattractive for myriad reasons, but it is impossible to consider them unambitious and lazy because... they're your duals, right?! I beg to differ here; duality will not make you necessarily agree with someone's lifestyle choices or the paths they choose to walk in life.
> 
> 
> 
> I think your idea of "valued elements" is pretty fucked up if it involves thinking a dual is incapable of being perceived lazy. Being lazy is something human and people are lazy/hardworking to different degrees. An ambitious person may not enjoy or be attracted to the company of a partygoer, even if communication between them is otherwise smooth due to duality.
> 
> Fyi, duals are fucking human. They have flaws and quirks and sometimes these make or break (existing or potential) relationships more than ease of information exchange does. If you think sociotype is always more important than these preferences when judging people and their compatibility, I suggest you avoid Socionics, or at least go revise your understanding of the theory. I think @_Abraxas_ said it pretty well when he talked about control variables in relationships and the perception of attractiveness.
> 
> If you're going to attribute any further aspects of compatibility to duality, then I think it's being unrealistic and idealizing a theory too much. Here's a convenient warning from Bukalov, a Socionist, about avoiding that trap (thanks @_Pancreatic Pandora_ for this quote):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I got your knickers in such a twist that you had to bring in the possibility of my relationship (something that, might I remind you, we were NOT originally discussing) being fucked up, for you to seem like the bigger person. Wow dude, I recommend you revise your definitions of respect and maturity because your aggression is getting a little too babyish here, trying to target everything in sight. Until then, please exclude me from your venting.


You got it toots.



Entropic said:


> WTF, I completely missed this so spell out to me, what duality problems do we have? Bad sex? You already went there, fyi, just by mentioning it and bringing it up.


Hey, I'm not the one who started this quarrel. Although I'm certain Amaterasu was just disagreeing with me just for disagreeing's sake at the very beginning of this whole interchange. Because I've never met an INTJ/INTp/ILI who I thought was lazy and a waste of space. Quite the opposite in my experience, which is why I said she's likely mistaken some types when forming her judgment. Because every ILI I've known are pretty high achieving people.



Entropic said:


> Makes me wonder what relationship problems you _have_ though, for even going there.


I don't know. I'd be inclined to say my biggest problem is that I'm non-committal. I don't think that's a major problem though.


----------



## Entropic

MNiS said:


> Hey, I'm not the one who started this quarrel. Although I'm certain Amaterasu was just disagreeing with me just for disagreeing's sake at the very beginning of this whole interchange. Because I've never met an INTJ/INTp/ILI who I thought was lazy and a waste of space. Quite the opposite in my experience, which is why I said she's likely mistaken some types when forming her judgment. Because every ILI I've known are pretty high achieving people.


Does it matter who started it? What you said was incredibly judgemental and short-sighted. I don't think she disagreed for the sake of disagreeing, but she disagreed because she found your opinion on the subject prejudiced and offensive. And I do think you are a waste of space in here. If I'll be perfectly frank, you're a bad typer and rarely offer anything meaningful that contributes to the threads you participate in. Your understanding of the system also seems very off and shallow. I doubt she's mistaken the people's types when she formulated her opinions and judgements; I overall find her to be an accurate typer and she's not one to bias against a person because they happened to be a certain type. And to be perfectly clear, I'm not saying that because she's my girlfriend. I have no problem drawing an objective conclusion about her in this regard. 

And claiming ILIs are prone to being high-achieving people is exactly the kind of stereotyping and prejudiced judgement that I'm talking about. It's like you have incredible issues seeing people for what they are outside of the type portraits you read about how they should be; if people do not fit those portraits based on your perception of the type you are more likely to think they are another type instead of accepting that perhaps they are just a less stereotypical example of that type. It reeks of Ti thinking and a lower order one to boot. Ti base types make data fit their theories too, but they will at least usually acknowledge and recognize that data has its objective validity and merit on its own because anything less would just lead to very unsound reasoning, something they don't want to associate themselves with. 



> I don't know. I'd be inclined to say my biggest problem is that I'm non-committal. I don't think that's a major problem though.


I think your problems are more serious than that.


----------



## MNiS

Entropic said:


> Does it matter who started it? What you said was incredibly judgemental and short-sighted. I don't think she disagreed for the sake of disagreeing, but she disagreed because she found your opinion on the subject prejudiced and offensive. And I do think you are a waste of space in here. If I'll be perfectly frank, you're a bad typer and rarely offer anything meaningful that contributes to the threads you participate in. Your understanding of the system also seems very off and shallow. I doubt she's mistaken the people's types when she formulated her opinions and judgements; I overall find her to be an accurate typer and she's not one to bias against a person because they happened to be a certain type. And to be perfectly clear, I'm not saying that because she's my girlfriend. I have no opinion drawing an objective conclusion about her in this regard.
> 
> And claiming ILIs are prone to being high-achieving people is exactly the kind of stereotyping and prejudiced judgement that I'm talking about. It's like you have incredible issues seeing people for what they are outside of the type portraits you read about how they should be; if people do not fit those portraits based on your perception of the type you are more likely to think they are another type instead of accepting that perhaps they are just a less stereotypical example of that type. It reeks of Ti thinking and a lower order one to boot. Ti base types make data fit their theories too, but they will at least usually acknowledge and recognize that data has its objective validity and merit on its own because anything less would just lead to very unsound reasoning, something they don't want to associate themselves with.
> 
> 
> 
> I think your problems are more serious than that.


I'm not going to respond to this since you've made several erroneous assumptions and logical connections and I have no desire to continue a conversation where the majority of time spent is trying to correct statement errors.

I already know who the dunces of the Socionics group at PerC are, don't worry. ;-)

I'm joking, btw.


----------



## Abraxas

Entropic said:


> It's like you have incredible issues seeing people for what they are outside of the type portraits you read about how they should be; if people do not fit those portraits based on your perception of the type you are more likely to think they are another type instead of accepting that perhaps they are just a less stereotypical example of that type. It reeks of Ti thinking and a lower order one to boot.


I'm noticing the same thing. Lower order Ti, probably connected to Te being the PoLR.

Always the most sensitive spot invokes the most exaggerated emotions. The proverbial "button" you have only to apply a little pressure to before that person gets hysterical.

Maybe SEI or IEI?




MNiS said:


> I'm joking, btw.




Lol, okay. Thanks for letting us know.


----------



## MNiS

Abraxas said:


> I'm noticing the same thing. Lower order Ti, probably connected to Te being the PoLR.
> 
> Always the most sensitive spot invokes the most exaggerated emotions. The proverbial "button" you have only to apply a little pressure to before that person gets hysterical.
> 
> Maybe SEI or IEI?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, okay. Thanks for letting us know.


I suppose this is what happens when someone who can't see straight teams up with a clear loser. 

Also, your "scientific observations" are juvenile. They may work on someone of your intelligence level but puh-lease.


----------



## Abraxas

MNiS said:


> I suppose this is what happens when someone who can't see straight teams up with a clear loser.


What do you mean by "can't see straight"? That's a very presumptuous thing to say.

The only thing I "can't see" is what you believe you see. That doesn't mean I don't see straight _at all._

Fill me in.




MNiS said:


> Also, your "scientific observations" are juvenile.


Cool, I'm glad to know kids are making accurate scientific observations.




MNiS said:


> They may work on someone of your intelligence level but puh-lease.


I'm sorry you feel excluded from my intelligence level.

I can tone it down a bit if you prefer.


----------



## Acadia

Hey, so not to interrupt your quarrel or anything, but I have some questions for fellow gammas. 

I'm either an ESI or SEE, and I came to see if I can learn more about socionics and how you would make that ultimate decision; my MBTI type is pretty different, and I've grasped cognitive functions over the past few months. Now I'm trying to learn about functions in socionics and reading only gets me so far. 

Could someone explain the different "blocks" in both those types and how they manifest themselves in terms of how individuals act? Or is socionics also more illustrative of how we think rather than how we present ourselves?

I studied conservation bio and veterinary technology, so socionics is a completely different world for me. I'm very literal, and this topic seems a little abstract.


----------



## Word Dispenser

heartofpompeii said:


> Hey, so not to interrupt your quarrel or anything, but I have some questions for fellow gammas.
> 
> I'm either an ESI or SEE, and I came to see if I can learn more about socionics and how you would make that ultimate decision; my MBTI type is pretty different, and I've grasped cognitive functions over the past few months. Now I'm trying to learn about functions in socionics and reading only gets me so far.
> 
> Could someone explain the different "blocks" in both those types and how they manifest themselves in terms of how individuals act? Or is socionics also more illustrative of how we think rather than how we present ourselves?
> 
> I studied conservation bio and veterinary technology, so socionics is a completely different world for me. I'm very literal, and this topic seems a little abstract.


If you're an ISTP in MBTI, you're probably an LSI ISTj in Socionics. The cognitive functions don't change any.

What made you think that you had it so different?


----------



## Inveniet

*Hanging in a corner listening to all the drama, with a gin and tonic to ease my mind.


----------



## Acadia

Word Dispenser said:


> If you're an ISTP in MBTI, you're probably an LSI ISTj in Socionics. The cognitive functions don't change any.
> 
> What made you think that you had it so different?


conversations on this forum, actually. 
whomever I spoke with said they don't have to line up. 

at any rate I'm always struggling to figure out if I'm Ti-dom that's rather passionate about a few causes, or an Fi-dom that's rather logical about her decisions. I know without a doubt that I'm a heavy Se-Ni user; my curiosity about how things work and using that knowledge to help me in those causes is indicative of Ti-Fe, but a few things--being a vegetarian, impatient, somewhat argumentative when beliefs are crossed--reflect Fi with inferior Te. but the person that wrote me said that sometimes, the way the segments of Socionics work can make types look differently. 

And then I confused the life out of myself by reading somewhere that extratim means you go after the things that you want an introtim means you don't, not necessarily introversion and extroversion. But I don't think that's true.

Hence, my confusion.


----------



## MNiS

Abraxas said:


> What do you mean by "can't see straight"? That's a very presumptuous thing to say.
> 
> The only thing I "can't see" is what you believe you see. That doesn't mean I don't see straight _at all._
> 
> Fill me in.


Says the guy and his dimwitted partner blindly fumbling around with Socionics.



Abraxas said:


> I'm sorry you feel excluded from my intelligence level.
> 
> I can tone it down a bit if you prefer.


Heh. That's fine. Just don't talk about me like I'm your muse. Especially threatening what amounts to psychological torture. That's juvenile and I don't find that to be humorous, clever, witty or intelligent at all. Only childish and worthy of contempt toward an adult who would say such a thing.

Specifically this:



Abraxas said:


> Always the most sensitive spot invokes the most exaggerated emotions. The proverbial "button" you have only to apply a little pressure to before that person gets hysterical.
> 
> Maybe SEI or IEI?


Don't do that ↑ and we'll get along fine.


----------



## MNiS

heartofpompeii said:


> Hey, so not to interrupt your quarrel or anything, but I have some questions for fellow gammas.
> 
> I'm either an ESI or SEE, and I came to see if I can learn more about socionics and how you would make that ultimate decision; my MBTI type is pretty different, and I've grasped cognitive functions over the past few months. Now I'm trying to learn about functions in socionics and reading only gets me so far.
> 
> Could someone explain the different "blocks" in both those types and how they manifest themselves in terms of how individuals act? Or is socionics also more illustrative of how we think rather than how we present ourselves?
> 
> I studied conservation bio and veterinary technology, so socionics is a completely different world for me. I'm very literal, and this topic seems a little abstract.


Hello there! 

How did you come to typing yourself via MBTI? If you typed yourself by test or type description there's a very good chance you may be an SLI or something similar since the MBTI ISTP type descriptions match very well with the Socionics SLI descriptions. If you typed yourself strictly using the cog functions, meaning you know that you're Ti-Se-Ni-Fe then you may be LSI. You can then refine your typing by figuring out which quadra fits you best. If it's Gamma then you may want to reassess your MBTI typing or just treat MBTI and Socionics as separate entities.

As for the "blocks", Socionics is based on Model A which has 8 spots which are made up of 4 blocks. Those 4 blocks are the:

Ego
Super-ego
Id
Super-id

Based on Freud's work on the conscious and subconscious mind. So the Information Metabolism Elements (cog functions) or IMEs of the first two blocks are of what your conscious mind sorts through while the following two are of the subconscious. Each of the 8 spots on Model A also have a name and it's useful to categorize them the way that they are because patterns emerge on how cognition works for each type.

If you have any more questions feel free!


----------



## Acadia

MNiS said:


> Hello there!
> 
> How did you come to typing yourself via MBTI? If you typed yourself by test or type description there's a very good chance you may be an SLI or something similar since the MBTI ISTP type descriptions match very well with the Socionics SLI descriptions. If you typed yourself strictly using the cog functions, meaning you know that you're Ti-Se-Ni-Fe then you may be LSI. You can then refine your typing by figuring out which quadra fits you best. If it's Gamma then you may want to reassess your MBTI typing or just treat MBTI and Socionics as separate entities.
> 
> As for the "blocks", Socionics is based on Model A which has 8 spots which are made up of 4 blocks. Those 4 blocks are the:
> 
> Ego
> Super-ego
> Id
> Super-id
> 
> Based on Freud's work on the conscious and subconscious mind. So the Information Metabolism Elements (cog functions) or IMEs of the first two blocks are of what your conscious mind sorts through while the following two are of the subconscious. Each of the 8 spots on Model A also have a name and it's useful to categorize them they way that they are because patterns emerge on how cognition works for each type.
> 
> If you have any more questions feel free!


I'm a pretty unconventional ISTP. I typed myself through lots of reading; cognitive functions that sort of thing. I actually put a lot of time into it. I had to take the actual test for work, and typed out as ISTP. 

All I know for certain is that I'm aux/tert Se-Ni. Whether or not I use Ti or Fi is the struggle; and honestly I haven't got a clue. I'm curious about these things because I like to know how they work. I'm also spending more time on it lately, as I recently fell off a rock and am immobile...going stir crazy essentially. Normally it's the easiest thing for people to figure out. But I look at some of my choices and the decisions that I've made and I'm not sure if I make those choices rationally or not. 

Example A: Being a vegetarian. I don't support slaughterhouses. We spend tons of money and waste food on animals that we're going to slaughter instead of using those resources on helping others that are hungry. That makes no sense to me. 

Example B: Riding my bike rather than driving my car. I like the thrill, it's practical in that it saves me money I'd otherwise spend on gas, and it's good for the environment. 

I could ramble on forever, but I just don't understand the way I reason things. Other things like choosing to break off connections with an ex rather than "stay friends" because I think the notion of staying friends is nonsense, putting weight on a busted ankle to take a cat to the vet; bust my ankle in the first place and then decide to continue hiking because it was a beautiful day out and my ankle didn't hurt all that bad, etc. 

I posted a survey on the main forum not too long ago and the few people that replied said I appear to use quite a bit of Fi. But when I posted a few times on the ISFP forum they said I seem like an ISTP. So ever since then I've just been lazy and dealt with the contradicting types


----------



## Word Dispenser

heartofpompeii said:


> conversations on this forum, actually.
> whomever I spoke with said they don't have to line up.
> 
> at any rate I'm always struggling to figure out if I'm Ti-dom that's rather passionate about a few causes, or an Fi-dom that's rather logical about her decisions. I know without a doubt that I'm a heavy Se-Ni user; my curiosity about how things work and using that knowledge to help me in those causes is indicative of Ti-Fe, but a few things--being a vegetarian, impatient, somewhat argumentative when beliefs are crossed--reflect Fi with inferior Te. but the person that wrote me said that sometimes, the way the segments of Socionics work can make types look differently.
> 
> And then I confused the life out of myself by reading somewhere that extratim means you go after the things that you want an introtim means you don't, not necessarily introversion and extroversion. But I don't think that's true.
> 
> Hence, my confusion.


I'm an Fe user, and I've been both Vegan and Vegetarian... Our affiliations and interests don't really indicate type. Type is just a backdrop.

There _are _a few stragglers on here who will say that types can be widely disparate between theories, but I am not one who subscribes to this notion. I think there are several others who agree with me, but I dunno.

I can see why you're confused-- You're grasping these very solid notions that are outlined in a paragraph or two. 

Cats do this, and dogs do this. Unfortunately, it's not generally that clear cut, since Socionics (and MBTI for that matter), are abstract constructs, and most of what is going on is happening as a motivation for, and cause for, our interests and behaviours, rather than our interests and behaviours being indicative of our cognition.

Does that make sense?

Thus, instead of looking at your vegetarianism cause, and trying to find the cognitive effect... Find out _why _you are driven towards this cause instead. That begins to point you in the right direction.

I can't say often enough-- Read and research. That's also important-- As well as being introspective.

Have you looked at the Reinen dichotomies yet?


----------



## MNiS

heartofpompeii said:


> I'm a pretty unconventional ISTP. I typed myself through lots of reading; cognitive functions that sort of thing. I actually put a lot of time into it. I had to take the actual test for work, and typed out as ISTP.
> 
> All I know for certain is that I'm aux/tert Se-Ni. Whether or not I use Ti or Fi is the struggle; and honestly I haven't got a clue. I'm curious about these things because I like to know how they work. I'm also spending more time on it lately, as I recently fell off a rock and am immobile...going stir crazy essentially. Normally it's the easiest thing for people to figure out. But I look at some of my choices and the decisions that I've made and I'm not sure if I make those choices rationally or not.
> 
> Example A: Being a vegetarian. I don't support slaughterhouses. We spend tons of money and waste food on animals that we're going to slaughter instead of using those resources on helping others that are hungry. That makes no sense to me.
> 
> Example B: Riding my bike rather than driving my car. I like the thrill, it's practical in that it saves me money I'd otherwise spend on gas, and it's good for the environment.
> 
> I could ramble on forever, but I just don't understand the way I reason things. Other things like choosing to break off connections with an ex rather than "stay friends" because I think the notion of staying friends is nonsense, putting weight on a busted ankle to take a cat to the vet; bust my ankle in the first place and then decide to continue hiking because it was a beautiful day out and my ankle didn't hurt all that bad, etc.
> 
> I posted a survey on the main forum not too long ago and the few people that replied said I appear to use quite a bit of Fi. But when I posted a few times on the ISFP forum they said I seem like an ISTP. So ever since then I've just been lazy and dealt with the contradicting types


Can you relate with Beta, Gamma or the Delta quadra more?

Socionics - the16types.info - Four Quadra

Also, I'm thinking you may be an irrational and not a rational (xxxp > xxxj).

Tentatively, I think you're an SLI with a good handle on Fi. Has there been a good Fi influence on you throughout your life? Although ESI or SEE may certainly be possible. It's just a bit strange that your official MBTI type would be ISTP in that case. You did take an official MBTI test at work, right?


----------



## Acadia

MNiS said:


> Can you relate with Beta, Gamma or the Delta quadra more?
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - Four Quadra
> 
> Also, I'm thinking you may be an irrational and not a rational (xxxp > xxxj).
> 
> Tentatively, I think you're an SLI with a good handle on Fi. Has there been a good Fi influence on you throughout your life? Although ESI or SEE may certainly be possible. It's just a bit strange that your official MBTI type would be ISTP in that case. You did take an official MBTI test at work, right?


yeah, I did take the test. and I had to pay the money for it too which is always a bummer. 

as far as influence, I think my mom is either an ISFP or an INFP, my dad is an ISTJ, which also uses Fi. most of my friends also use Fi in their stacks somewhere, and I dated an ExFP on and off for four years. There's a lot of Fi in my life. 

Here's what I relate to with Beta:

Beta quadra types are more confident analysing realistic characteristics of situations, people, and objects, rather than alternative and could-it-be scenarios.

Beta quadra types are energized by competitive situations where analytical tactics are emphasized.

Beta types tend to give more value to feelings when they are demonstrated with clear emotional expression, and tend to increase the level of their own emotional expression in order to get a reaction from other people.

Beta types are often deeply concerned about social issues and the direction the world is heading. They believe that apathy is a significant cause of societal problems, and work to fight against it.

Beta types are not inclined to enjoy discussions of personal experiences when the focus is on a person's own inner feelings, especially when described in a subdued way.

Beta types tend to be skeptical of another individual's potential for personal growth in terms of abilities and character, and dislike being the subject of such a discussion by others about themselves.

Gamma - 

Gamma types tend to give more value to ideas and concepts that are firmly connected to factual information.

Gamma types place high value on personal loyalty, once they feel a close relationship has been established.

Gamma types like to discuss personal relationships in a realistic manner and are skeptical that "jerks" can ever become "nice people", for instance.

Gamma types reject the idea that it's best to avoid confrontations so as not to spoil the mood of those present, they prefer directness in settling or at least discussing disagreements.

Gamma types are more inclined to speculate and discuss possible developments of present circumstances, or how these came about, than to speculate or analyze alternative scenarios or possibilities.


----------



## Acadia

Word Dispenser said:


> I'm an Fe user, and I've been both Vegan and Vegetarian... Our affiliations and interests don't really indicate type. Type is just a backdrop.
> 
> There _are _a few stragglers on here who will say that types can be widely disparate between theories, but I am not one who subscribes to this notion. I think there are several others who agree with me, but I dunno.
> 
> I can see why you're confused-- You're grasping these very solid notions that are outlined in a paragraph or two.
> 
> Cats do this, and dogs do this. Unfortunately, it's not generally that clear cut, since Socionics (and MBTI for that matter), are abstract constructs, and most of what is going on is happening as a motivation for, and cause for, our interests and behaviours, rather than our interests and behaviours being indicative of our cognition.
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 
> Thus, instead of looking at your vegetarianism cause, and trying to find the cognitive effect... Find out _why _you are driven towards this cause instead. That begins to point you in the right direction.
> 
> I can't say often enough-- Read and research. That's also important-- As well as being introspective.
> 
> Have you looked at the Reinen dichotomies yet?


I just read about the dichotomies; starting to get a bit of a grasp on them. 

Some questions are a bit tougher. Why do I pursue the things that I do? I guess I used to say: "somebody will take care of the problem, someone will figure it out" and then I realized one day, "Why don't I just figure it out?" {regarding my studies in conservation biology} 

why do I work with animals? 'cause I feel like people care too much about people sometimes, and don't realize that we're not the only ones that exist on this planet.

and then why don't I support the things I don't like? I think those things are wrong. I think it's wrong for women to be treated as less than equal. I think war is wrong. but why do I think war is wrong? because it involves ending lives for a cause that ultimately will be discussed with pen and paper. A lot of the time I think justice is stupid, but I myself can be somewhat vindictive. I think rampant consumerism is wrong because wastes time and resources. I value travel because I like the thrill of moving somewhere. I like seeing new things, tasting, smelling etc. and experiencing. when I get frustrated I just rant about stupidity and ignorance. I dunno. 

I'm not sure what I feel a lot of the time. But I kinda navigate by gut feelings. Not so much is this right or wrong, or is it logical or not, but does this make sense to me? What do I stand for? also another question I frequently ask myself. 

I don't know if this clarifies anything to you, but it's just confusing me more. Introspection is kinda hard.


----------



## MNiS

heartofpompeii said:


> yeah, I did take the test. and I had to pay the money for it too which is always a bummer.
> 
> as far as influence, I think my mom is either an ISFP or an INFP, my dad is an ISTJ, which also uses Fi. most of my friends also use Fi in their stacks somewhere, and I dated an ExFP on and off for four years. There's a lot of Fi in my life.


Ah, I see okay. Did your work _make _take the test and pay for it? That would definitely be a bummer. Heh.



heartofpompeii said:


> Here's what I relate to with Beta:
> 
> Beta quadra types are more confident analysing realistic characteristics of situations, people, and objects, rather than alternative and could-it-be scenarios.
> 
> Beta quadra types are energized by competitive situations where analytical tactics are emphasized.
> 
> Beta types tend to give more value to feelings when they are demonstrated with clear emotional expression, and tend to increase the level of their own emotional expression in order to get a reaction from other people.
> 
> Beta types are often deeply concerned about social issues and the direction the world is heading. They believe that apathy is a significant cause of societal problems, and work to fight against it.
> 
> Beta types are not inclined to enjoy discussions of personal experiences when the focus is on a person's own inner feelings, especially when described in a subdued way.
> 
> Beta types tend to be skeptical of another individual's potential for personal growth in terms of abilities and character, and dislike being the subject of such a discussion by others about themselves.
> 
> Gamma -
> 
> Gamma types tend to give more value to ideas and concepts that are firmly connected to factual information.
> 
> Gamma types place high value on personal loyalty, once they feel a close relationship has been established.
> 
> Gamma types like to discuss personal relationships in a realistic manner and are skeptical that "jerks" can ever become "nice people", for instance.
> 
> Gamma types reject the idea that it's best to avoid confrontations so as not to spoil the mood of those present, they prefer directness in settling or at least discussing disagreements.
> 
> Gamma types are more inclined to speculate and discuss possible developments of present circumstances, or how these came about, than to speculate or analyze alternative scenarios or possibilities.


So you don't relate to Delta or Alpha at all?

Well, much of what you relate to within Beta and to some degree Gamma would coincide with SLE rather well:

SLE male and female - Wikisocion

Although I suppose SEE or ESI wouldn't be out of the question just yet but SLE sounds like a good fit for you.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Abraxas said:


> This is why I love the Socionics forum here the best now: there's way more personal discussions here than I've seen on the other forums (that I hang out in).
> 
> It's kind of a warm fuzzy feeling when I see it. Everyone cares about each other so much. It's really endearing.


I think you just broke some sacred ILI code of honor


----------



## Acadia

MNiS said:


> Ah, I see okay. Did your work _make _take the test and pay for it? That would definitely be a bummer. Heh.
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't relate to Delta or Alpha at all?
> 
> Well, much of what you relate to within Beta and to some degree Gamma would coincide with SLE rather well:
> 
> SLE male and female - Wikisocion
> 
> Although I suppose SEE or ESI wouldn't be out of the question just yet but SLE sounds like a good fit for you.


Yeah, I had to take it. But it's okay, it got me interested in all of this, so I don't mind. It's helping me understand myself, and others. 

I can't really relate to Alpha or Delta at all. I'm pretty direct and capable of being confrontational; I'm not worried about making sure everybody's comfortable. Delta doesn't suit me either; I frequently display my passions to the point they get me into trouble, and talking about the future makes me really uncomfortable. I'm very here-and-now. 

The portraits are so-so, I don't think it's gonna help me by looking at them. I read "she takes control of domestic matters" and lost all interest; more often than not I abandon ship in a lackadaisical fashion. I loathe cooking, {partly because as good of a guy as my dad is, he's occasionally of the mind-frame that women cook and men do technology, which has pissed me off my entire life. it's just not true.. and so I became "the sound master" and excelled in technical theatre; I became an ice hockey player with an aversion to all things domestic and rambler. I've lived in three different places throughout the past three years.} I'm extraordinarily disorganized and am completely content leaving my house a mess. I'd like it to be colorful and have cool posters--but tidiness is one of my least priorities--as long as the dishes don't smell, I'm good. I'm usually hungry because I can't be bothered to go grocery shopping {I wait til the last minute. too many people, too many preservatives, costs too much. part of that is just me being in my early 20s, I think} and I'm not really responsible. For my younger brothers, sure, but I'm a big slacker. I suit the male portrait far better than the female. 

I have my doubts about being an extroverted sociotype. I'm independent, and I always need some alone time. Large groups drain me, so I always break the big groups into smaller groups; like two or three other people. Otherwise I'm feel like I'm forced to pretend to be someone I'm not. I must stop to think before I talk. If not, my words get jumbled. I'm bilingual and that can be part of it, but I need to get my thoughts in order before I speak them. Unless it's an instant reaction to something, I stumble.


----------



## Abraxas

MNiS said:


> Says the guy and his dimwitted partner blindly fumbling around with Socionics.


Whatever do you mean? @Entropic is my dimwitted partner now?

Come on. Don't you think you're going a _bit_ off the rails now, MNiS? This isn't a conspiracy against you, it's an open discussion.


Also, do you think you could you give me an example of where I am "blindly fumbling around" with Socionics?

I'm still waiting to be filled in, MNiS.




MNiS said:


> Heh. That's fine. Just don't talk about me like I'm your muse. Especially threatening what amounts to psychological torture. That's juvenile and I don't find that to be humorous, clever, witty or intelligent at all. Only childish and worthy of contempt toward an adult who would say such a thing.













Ah, I see. You thought that simple universal fact was directed specifically at you? It wasn't. It was directed at myself as well; did you know that I also have a vulnerable function, MNiS? It was directed at everyone obviously, but you seem to have let your insecurity in this context make yourself the victim. I'm not responsible for that.


----------



## MNiS

Abraxas said:


> Whatever do you mean? @_Entropic_ is my dimwitted partner now?
> 
> Come on. Don't you think you're going a _bit_ off the rails now, MNiS? This isn't a conspiracy against you, it's an open discussion.
> 
> 
> Also, do you think you could you give me an example of where I am "blindly fumbling around" with Socionics?
> 
> I'm still waiting to be filled in, MNiS.


What's left to explain? I told you what not to do when interacting with me and if you oblige then we'll get along. If you don't then we won't. Simple, yes? If you don't get it then perhaps I called the wrong person the dimwit because it's not like I'm being difficult to understand.



Abraxas said:


> Ah, I see. You thought that simple universal fact was directed specifically at you? It wasn't. It was directed at myself as well; did you know that I also have a vulnerable function, MNiS? It was directed at everyone obviously, but you seem to have let your insecurity in this context make yourself the victim. I'm not responsible for that.


Don't be such a sniveling little coward and try to waffle out of your own words. Take ownership. I already told you to what I expect and a little mutual respect would be appreciated.

Otherwise good day to you, Abraxas.

PS: I'm not ordinarily this mean. You just really struck a nerve with that one comment.


----------



## MNiS

heartofpompeii said:


> Yeah, I had to take it. But it's okay, it got me interested in all of this, so I don't mind. It's helping me understand myself, and others.


That's the spirit. 



heartofpompeii said:


> I can't really relate to Alpha or Delta at all. I'm pretty direct and capable of being confrontational; I'm not worried about making sure everybody's comfortable. Delta doesn't suit me either; I frequently display my passions to the point they get me into trouble, and talking about the future makes me really uncomfortable. I'm very here-and-now.
> 
> The portraits are so-so, I don't think it's gonna help me by looking at them. I read "she takes control of domestic matters" and lost all interest; more often than not I abandon ship in a lackadaisical fashion. I loathe cooking, {partly because as good of a guy as my dad is, he's occasionally of the mind-frame that women cook and men do technology, which has pissed me off my entire life. it's just not true.. and so I became "the sound master" and excelled in technical theatre; I became an ice hockey player with an aversion to all things domestic and rambler. I've lived in three different places throughout the past three years.} I'm extraordinarily disorganized and am completely content leaving my house a mess. I'd like it to be colorful and have cool posters--but tidiness is one of my least priorities--as long as the dishes don't smell, I'm good. I'm usually hungry because I can't be bothered to go grocery shopping {I wait til the last minute. too many people, too many preservatives, costs too much. part of that is just me being in my early 20s, I think} and I'm not really responsible. For my younger brothers, sure, but I'm a big slacker. I suit the male portrait far better than the female.
> 
> I have my doubts about being an extroverted sociotype. I'm independent, and I always need some alone time. Large groups drain me, so I always break the big groups into smaller groups; like two or three other people. Otherwise I'm feel like I'm forced to pretend to be someone I'm not. I must stop to think before I talk. If not, my words get jumbled. I'm bilingual and that can be part of it, but I need to get my thoughts in order before I speak them. Unless it's an instant reaction to something, I stumble.


I think you may have misunderstood that line in the male/female SLE portraits article. The heading of domestic matters means the female SLE will often be the head of the household, meaning she will usually make the big decisions for the family, have the final word etc. That's all in accordance with how the SLE is, male or female; the leading Se and the Results and Strategic elements of the SLE make them very goal oriented and is the type that always has their "eye on the prize" in a very tangible way. It's also why the IEI is a great match for the SLE because the IEI is pliable and will appreciate someone who can take charge when necessary while offering insights on the side in an advising fashion.

Also, would you care to explain why you don't think you're not extroverted? Being independent is not indicative of introversion as the Se-dominants tend to be very independent (the Ne-dominants too, but in a very different way). The SLE, especially the Ti-subtypes, tend to be solitary and only invite people into their social circles when necessary.

Not liking big groups is _very_ quadra oriented, btw. Personally, I don't like mingling in large groups of Fe-types because having to constantly hyperbolize my speech to make it more interesting for Alphas (I find that Betas tend to be more accepting of Gammas and their flatter emotional affects and similarly Alphas don't mind Delta Fi) is exhausting to me. Large groups of Betas are *FUN, FUN AND MORE FUN *but still, the constant Fe is draining to me over time and I just want to get away and back to reality eventually. I like environments where I can plainly express myself without having to plug in a bunch of (to me) fake Fe-based pleasantries. An Fe-valuer would likely feel the same way about large groups of Fi-types and find Fi-manners to be pointless and unnecessarily formal.

Of course LSI may also be a possibility as well but my strongest impression of you is that you're an irrational and an extroverted perceiver moreso than a rational and introverted judger.

Here's the portraits for the LSI as well: http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=LSI_male_and_female


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

It's been a while since one of these arguments, hasn't it?

It's almost as if an element was gone and now it's back.


----------



## MNiS

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> It's been a while since one of these arguments, hasn't it?
> 
> It's almost as if an element was gone and now it's back.


I equate it more to harassment as it's a very specific group who's always causing the squabbling. It's not anything worth reporting but the targeting and sad attempts at bullying is definitely there.

I shall call them the "Bitch Group"™ because they're always bitching about something to me or about me. Also, because they're a bunch of sniveling bitches.

I'm also half-expecting this post to be reported by someone. I can spare a few points though if it means I get to say what I'm really thinking.


----------



## Acadia

MNiS said:


> That's the spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you may have misunderstood that line in the male/female SLE portraits article. The heading of domestic matters means the female SLE will often be the head of the household, meaning she will usually make the big decisions for the family, have the final word etc. That's all in accordance with how the SLE is, male or female; the leading Se and the Results and Strategic elements of the SLE make them very goal oriented and is the type that always has their "eye on the prize" in a very tangible way. It's also why the IEI is a great match for the SLE because the IEI is pliable and will appreciate someone who can take charge when necessary while offering insights on the side in an advising fashion.
> 
> Also, would you care to explain why you don't think you're not extroverted? Being independent is not indicative of introversion as the Se-dominants tend to be very independent (the Ne-dominants too, but in a very different way). The SLE, especially the Ti-subtypes, tend to be solitary and only invite people into their social circles when necessary.
> 
> Not liking big groups is _very_ quadra oriented, btw. Personally, I don't like mingling in large groups of Fe-types because having to constantly hyperbolize my speech to make it more interesting for Alphas (I find that Betas tend to be more accepting of Gammas and their flatter emotional affects and similarly Alphas don't mind Delta Fi) is exhausting to me. Large groups of Betas are *FUN, FUN AND MORE FUN *but still, the constant Fe is draining to me over time and I just want to get away and back to reality eventually. I like environments where I can plainly express myself without having to plug in a bunch of (to me) fake Fe-based pleasantries. An Fe-valuer would likely feel the same way about large groups of Fi-types and find Fi-manners to be pointless and unnecessarily formal.
> 
> Of course LSI may also be a possibility as well but my strongest impression of you is that you're an irrational and an extroverted perceiver moreso than a rational and introverted judger.
> 
> Here's the portraits for the LSI as well: LSI male and female - Wikisocion


At least cognitively, I get drained by being around other people. I'd much rather stay in than go out. My best friend is my dog, and I'd mostly like to keep it that way. I feel like I can't properly express myself in large groups. 

While I like the idea of being head of household in a way; I just don't believe in head of household. It's not important to me. I don't think or like that anyone should be in charge. If you own a house with someone, it should either be a partnership, or people should feel free to come and go as they pleased. I'm really laid back and disinterested in that sort of thing. Whenever people start to tell me what to do a switch in me goes off and I simply leave the situation. And I just...don't try to put things or people in order. I can start initiatives that I care about, but my friends call me the accidental hero; I'm not one for any sort of spotlight for the most part. I hang on the sidelines and listen and observe before jumping in if I decide it's worthwhile. Honestly I do best when somebody else is lighting a fire under my ass. I really hate being left in charge of other people for the most part. 

I'll also spend long periods of time thinking. If I become focused on something, I take it apart completely to figure out how it works. I ask a lot of questions. Se is very important to me in that I'm so...involved in my immediate environment; and I overuse it; but it's still not my dominant function in mbti. {socionics, of course, is different} 

The portrait of an LSI doesn't really suit me either; then again I don't think I'll find any portrait that suits me all that well.


----------



## MNiS

heartofpompeii said:


> At least cognitively, I get drained by being around other people. I'd much rather stay in than go out. My best friend is my dog, and I'd mostly like to keep it that way. I feel like I can't properly express myself in large groups.
> 
> While I like the idea of being head of household in a way; I just don't believe in head of household. It's not important to me. I don't think or like that anyone should be in charge. If you own a house with someone, it should either be a partnership, or people should feel free to come and go as they pleased. I'm really laid back and disinterested in that sort of thing. Whenever people start to tell me what to do a switch in me goes off and I simply leave the situation. And I just...don't try to put things or people in order. I can start initiatives that I care about, but my friends call me the accidental hero; I'm not one for any sort of spotlight for the most part. I hang on the sidelines and listen and observe before jumping in if I decide it's worthwhile. Honestly I do best when somebody else is lighting a fire under my ass. I really hate being left in charge of other people for the most part.
> 
> I'll also spend long periods of time thinking. If I become focused on something, I take it apart completely to figure out how it works. I ask a lot of questions. Se is very important to me in that I'm so...involved in my immediate environment; and I overuse it; but it's still not my dominant function in mbti. {socionics, of course, is different}
> 
> The portrait of an LSI doesn't really suit me either; then again I don't think I'll find any portrait that suits me all that well.


Ah. Your second paragraph sounds Gamma (also Alpha but you've already ruled Alpha out). Okay, so why are you unsure of being Ti or Fi? They tend to be very different and a person can be proficient with either but at the end of the day still prefer and value only one and use the other only as a means to an end.

Like, I can do a lot of technical work and even convince myself that I enjoy it to some degree. Ultimately though I view it as something to get through because if I don't, I'll let people who're depending on me down and that affects me more than the possibility of not being capable of doing the work.


----------



## Acadia

MNiS said:


> Ah. Your second paragraph sounds Gamma (also Alpha but you've already ruled Alpha out). Okay, so why are you unsure of being Ti or Fi? They tend to be very different and a person can be proficient with either but at the end of the day still prefer and value only one and use the other only as a means to an end.
> 
> Like, I can do a lot of technical work and even convince myself that I enjoy it to some degree. Ultimately though I view it as something to get through because if I don't, I'll let people who're depending on me down and that affects me more than the possibility of not being capable of doing the work.


and therein lies the struggle, haha. 

because I don't know. I don't know if the decisions I make and the passions I pursue are based on the things I believe, or internal logic. I ask a ton of questions. I sort things through in my head. 

It's easy for me to remove people from my life, but is that because logically if I discern that they will only continue to hurt me they should be removed? or because I internally feel wronged, and the best way to eradicate that wrong is to remove the source? 

I believe very much in things like equity; I'm extremely liberal, but I can back up my perspectives and ideas with logic and common sense. I attend protests and gave a workshop on the Climate Train, but I'm not one to actually get arrested for my causes. But is that because logically that doesn't make sense to me? Or because I believe that getting arrested wouldn't help me achieve my goal? The 'you make more friends with honey than vinegar' thing?

I had this ex. We dated for four years on and off. He was certainly an ExFP in mbti; he lived in an ideal world. I disagreed with him a lot, but we believed in the same things and fought alongside each other for those causes. But, he took it to a level I didn't. He started a fight with the preacher that regularly attended his campus and shamed gay students. He used to post hateful fb statuses; he didn't realize that while some of his actions made a difference, others did nothing at all. He viewed "the enemy" as anybody who was marginally on the fence about certain causes; and though we believed in 99% of the same things, if something came up that we didn't agree with, I could brush it off and deal with the difference--whereas he took it as a personal blow. By the end of our relationship, he grew very competitive with me. But it was clear that I wanted to travel, to experience new things--and he wanted to stay here, and fight. he's now the vice president of his organization, and I'm more well-traveled, experiencing the worlds of biodiversity hands on, working with wildlife. But we're still the same fumbling hippy kids we were a couple of years ago. Just, older and more confused. 

I like actually _doing_ things. I like getting up and leaving when I feel like it. I like making a tangible difference in things I can actually see happening as a result. That's why I'm a wildlife veterinary assistant. Troubleshooting, and solving the problem. I like motion. I like using my senses. I like living in the moment. But all that tells me is Se. 

But I ask a lot of questions. I think I use Ti because I figure out how things work before I make up my mind in terms of how I feel about them. But in the end, I still figure out how I feel about them, I suppose.


----------



## MNiS

heartofpompeii said:


> and therein lies the struggle, haha.
> 
> because I don't know. I don't know if the decisions I make and the passions I pursue are based on the things I believe, or internal logic. I ask a ton of questions. I sort things through in my head.
> 
> It's easy for me to remove people from my life, but is that because logically if I discern that they will only continue to hurt me they should be removed? or because I internally feel wronged, and the best way to eradicate that wrong is to remove the source?
> 
> I believe very much in things like equity; I'm extremely liberal, but I can back up my perspectives and ideas with logic and common sense. I attend protests and gave a workshop on the Climate Train, but I'm not one to actually get arrested for my causes. But is that because logically that doesn't make sense to me? Or because I believe that getting arrested wouldn't help me achieve my goal? The 'you make more friends with honey than vinegar' thing?
> 
> I had this ex. We dated for four years on and off. He was certainly an ExFP in mbti; he lived in an ideal world. I disagreed with him a lot, but we believed in the same things and fought alongside each other for those causes. But, he took it to a level I didn't. He started a fight with the preacher that regularly attended his campus and shamed gay students. He used to post hateful fb statuses; he didn't realize that while some of his actions made a difference, others did nothing at all. He viewed "the enemy" as anybody who was marginally on the fence about certain causes; and though we believed in 99% of the same things, if something came up that we didn't agree with, I could brush it off and deal with the difference--whereas he took it as a personal blow. By the end of our relationship, he grew very competitive with me. But it was clear that I wanted to travel, to experience new things--and he wanted to stay here, and fight. he's now the vice president of his organization, and I'm more well-traveled, experiencing the worlds of biodiversity hands on, working with wildlife. But we're still the same fumbling hippy kids we were a couple of years ago. Just, older and more confused.
> 
> I like actually _doing_ things. I like getting up and leaving when I feel like it. I like making a tangible difference in things I can actually see happening as a result. That's why I'm a wildlife veterinary assistant. Troubleshooting, and solving the problem. I like motion. I like using my senses. I like living in the moment. But all that tells me is Se.
> 
> But I ask a lot of questions. I think I use Ti because I figure out how things work before I make up my mind in terms of how I feel about them. But in the end, I still figure out how I feel about them, I suppose.


Okay, I think Se-leading is accurate for you. Here's the SEE descriptions: SEE male and female - Wikisocion

Also, it's funny your experiences with your ExFP ex turned out like that. I've dated an ESxP (She's probably an SEE now that I think about it) and I can definitely vouch for the competitiveness. Since we both liked Se activities what she liked I usually ended up liking and vice versa but if it was ever anything remotely competitive then it almost always turned into all out war during play only to be perfectly normal and fine with one another afterward.  If one of us were clearly better than the other then the loser would take the backseat status for the rest of the day. Considering she's a petite and perky person there was nothing she wanted more than to have me follow her around on b***h duty all day so she took winning against me really seriously. XD Good times but yeah, that becomes tiring after a while. Especially since she'd guilt me any time I would beat her at whatever competition we were in at the time. I don't know what your ex' deal was with the hate speech, but that does sound like Fi gone extreme. Much like how Ti extremism can lead to philosophical rationalism and a complete rejection of the tangible and empirical, Fi extremism can really lead a person on a moral crusade against whatever it is they're championing against.

FWIW, he sounds like an ENFP. ENFPs can be very motivated if they get into whatever it is that they're advocating and I think the champion label for the ENFP is an accurate one.


----------



## Acadia

MNiS said:


> Okay, I think Se-leading is accurate for you. Here's the SEE descriptions: SEE male and female - Wikisocion
> 
> Also, it's funny your experiences with your ExFP ex turned out like that. I've dated an ESxP (She's probably an SEE now that I think about it) and I can definitely vouch for the competitiveness. Since we both liked Se activities what she liked I usually ended up liking and vice versa but if it was ever anything remotely competitive then it almost always turned into all out war during play only to be perfectly normal and fine with one another afterward.  If one of us were clearly better than the other then the loser would take the backseat status for the rest of the day. Considering she's a petite and perky person there was nothing she wanted more than to have me follow her around on b***h duty all day so she took winning against me really seriously. XD Good times but yeah, that becomes tiring after a while. Especially since she'd guilt me any time I would beat her at whatever competition we were in at the time. I don't know what your ex' deal was with the hate speech, but that does sound like Fi gone extreme. Much like how Ti extremism can lead to philosophical rationalism and a complete rejection of the tangible and empirical, Fi extremism can really lead a person on a moral crusade against whatever it is they're championing against.
> 
> FWIW, he sounds like an ENFP. ENFPs can be very motivated if they get into whatever it is that they're advocating and I think the champion label for the ENFP is an accurate one.


I'd agree with him being an ENFP. He was stepped on quite a bit back in high school, and I think some of that anger translated into university and beyond. He's a good guy, but his friends picked on him a lot for being silly and a dreamer; I think he channels some of his anger at them into his every day life. Anything I hear about him now is only hearsay, I cut him out to save myself the trouble as horrible as that sounds. Still, he was around during a lot of my formative years and I can't pretend he never existed. at any rate, I still care about him. I just can't have him in my life anymore. 

And I can get pretty competitive haha but only in a healthy way. once it becomes too serious the fun is over; and that's the whole point of competing in the first place, at least for me. 

I think SEE is a pretty good fit for me. I like the line about being optimistic and skeptical at the same time. suits me well. 

I guess ultimately that would make ISFP a better fit than ISTP in MBTI. I know it should technically be ESFP, but Socionics seems to describe the functions a little differently; it seems possible to lead with Se in socionics and still be an introvert.


----------



## MNiS

heartofpompeii said:


> I'd agree with him being an ENFP. He was stepped on quite a bit back in high school, and I think some of that anger translated into university and beyond. He's a good guy, but his friends picked on him a lot for being silly and a dreamer; I think he channels some of his anger at them into his every day life. Anything I hear about him now is only hearsay, I cut him out to save myself the trouble as horrible as that sounds. Still, he was around during a lot of my formative years and I can't pretend he never existed. at any rate, I still care about him. I just can't have him in my life anymore.
> 
> And I can get pretty competitive haha but only in a healthy way. once it becomes too serious the fun is over; and that's the whole point of competing in the first place, at least for me.
> 
> I think SEE is a pretty good fit for me. I like the line about being optimistic and skeptical at the same time. suits me well.
> 
> I guess ultimately that would make ISFP a better fit than ISTP in MBTI. I know it should technically be ESFP, but Socionics seems to describe the functions a little differently; it seems possible to lead with Se in socionics and still be an introvert.


I see. You see that happen a lot with people who were bullied when young. I knew a guy who was relentlessly bullied in elementary school and I ran into the guy as an adult and he was huge and muscular. He really got into body building and I can't help but wonder if it was because partly due to being bullied. Another guy I knew who was picked on often as a kid really got into martial arts. At least your ex channels his anger into something productive but yeah I don't blame you for wanting to cut him out of your life. Being around someone so angry can start to rub off on you and that's when it starts to affect you negatively and when you should get away. To be honest, I've completely removed people from my life too so I don't really think the behavior is really _that _horrible.

Haha yeah, I think dating another SEE can be best described as a fun and active relationship. The only real reason we stopped was because she moved away and wouldn't be seeing one another anymore. Come to think of it, that's happened quite often in my life. :|

Yeah, I suppose you should also consider ESI but you seem way more Ep than Ij. I think the standard MBTI definition of introversion isn't really suitable for the cognitive definition and yeah, in many cases an introvert within MBTI is an extrovert in Socionics.


----------



## Acadia

MNiS said:


> I see. You see that happen a lot with people who were bullied when young. I knew a guy who was relentlessly bullied in elementary school and I ran into the guy as an adult and he was huge and muscular. He really got into body building and I can't help but wonder if it was because partly due to being bullied. Another guy I knew who was picked on often as a kid really got into martial arts. At least your ex channels his anger into something productive but yeah I don't blame you for wanting to cut him out of your life. Being around someone so angry can start to rub off on you and that's when it starts to affect you negatively and when you should get away. To be honest, I've completely removed people from my life too so I don't really think the behavior is really _that _horrible.
> 
> Haha yeah, I think dating another SEE can be best described as a fun and active relationship. The only real reason we stopped was because she moved away and wouldn't be seeing one another anymore. Come to think of it, that's happened quite often in my life. :|
> 
> Yeah, I suppose you should also consider ESI but you seem way more Ep than Ij. I think the standard MBTI definition of introversion isn't really suitable for the cognitive definition and yeah, in many cases an introvert within MBTI is an extrovert in Socionics.


Plus, he dumped me, and wanted to be "friends", which after spending two years committed and two years prior to that on and off, you become aware that "friends" means "until I feel like being with you again"; and that just felt shitty. it was weird with him; he was always very, very well-liked; but the people that liked him wanted him to be something he wasn't. I think that's why he started lashing out like that. 

That's a bummer though dude. Sorry it hasn't worked out for ya. the hardest relationships to let go of are the ones that are the most active and fun; they're liberating. at least, imo. 

And yeah that's kinda what I figured. I think SEE fits a little better than ESI, and ISFP fits better than ESFP. 
All in all that's why they're called your best-fit types rather than an absolute definition.


----------



## MNiS

heartofpompeii said:


> Plus, he dumped me, and wanted to be "friends", which after spending two years committed and two years prior to that on and off, you become aware that "friends" means "until I feel like being with you again"; and that just felt shitty. it was weird with him; he was always very, very well-liked; but the people that liked him wanted him to be something he wasn't. I think that's why he started lashing out like that.
> 
> That's a bummer though dude. Sorry it hasn't worked out for ya. the hardest relationships to let go of are the ones that are the most active and fun; they're liberating. at least, imo.
> 
> And yeah that's kinda what I figured. I think SEE fits a little better than ESI, and ISFP fits better than ESFP.
> All in all that's why they're called your best-fit types rather than an absolute definition.


Ah, the whole I don't want to date but still be friends so I can see other people while keeping you around bit. Classy. Hm, yeah I think I can understand. Being an ExFP guy can be difficult growing up because guys are stereotypically supposed to be, well not ExFP. That becomes less of an issue in adulthood but it can be a numerous source of problems growing up.

Eh, the relationship happened a long time ago. Besides, it was fun while it lasted and I don't really see the point in being remorseful over something I had no control over. We had a ton of fun together and when it ended, that was that. Besides, duality is where it's at. If only they weren't so gosh darned rare. Hahah. 

SEE and ISFP can certainly be a thing. Maybe this time the ISFPs won't keep trying to redirect you to the ISTP subforum, lol


----------



## Abraxas

MNiS said:


> What's left to explain? I told you what not to do when interacting with me and if you oblige then we'll get along. If you don't then we won't. Simple, yes? If you don't get it then perhaps I called the wrong person the dimwit because it's not like I'm being difficult to understand.


And yet again you avoid simply backing up your accusation with any kind of evidence by repeating "it's obvious, it's obvious!"

No MNiS, it's not at all obvious.

Oh well, I suppose I will just have to accept I am a dumb fool because I don't see what you see.





MNiS said:


> Don't be such a sniveling little coward and try to waffle out of your own words. Take ownership. I already told you to what I expect and a little mutual respect would be appreciated.


Coming from the one who can't even back up anything they say with a reasonable argument?

Kettle, meet pot.




MNiS said:


> I equate it more to harassment as it's a very specific group who's always causing the squabbling. It's not anything worth reporting but the targeting and sad attempts at bullying is definitely there.
> 
> I shall call them the "Bitch Group"™ because they're always bitching about something to me or about me. Also, because they're a bunch of sniveling bitches.
> 
> I'm also half-expecting this post to be reported by someone. I can spare a few points though if it means I get to say what I'm really thinking.


MNiS, the only person who has been "harassing" or "bullying" anyone in this discussion is you, and if anyone ought to do the reporting, it's the people _you_ are harassing. Namely, me.

I came into this discussion making a point to Entropic that was not even directed at you, but you projected your ego into it because you saw a correlation between it and yourself - that was a connection you made in your mind. And while your behavior may have inspired me to make the observation, it was a universal observation that just as well applies to me, or Entropic, or anyone for that matter. But you took it personally because _you feel threatened_ and that has nothing to do with me.

I have not called you a bitch or a juvenile, nor have I even complained so far about you. It does not even bother me that you feel the need to lash out. Honestly, we all have our moments, it's fine. No hard feelings, MNiS, because I understand why you're doing it and I empathize.

You've got a group of people who aren't cutting you any slack right now and criticising your arguments, debating with you. Nobody enjoys dissonance, MNiS. I hate it too. I just don't _sympathize_ with it, because to give you any sympathy for it would be to condone it and reinforce it. You need to stop being defensive and just come up with better arguments or drop it instead of acting like you are, which is immature and pointless.

And stop trying to marginalize yourself as if there were some kind of _factions_ here. I don't even know @Entropic or @Amaterasu, or @Word Dispenser, or any of the people thanking my posts apart from a handful of posts I've seen them make and even less than that which I've actually replied to. Again, this isn't some ridiculous conspiracy, nor do I belong to any kind of clique here where I'm ganging up against you. I disagree with Entropic about as much as I agree with him, and we've had words between us just the same, although there doesn't seem to be a grudge over it the way you're reacting either.

Maybe you need a break, MNiS?

Really, just chill out and stop defending yourself.

You're fine. Let it go. Nothing I am saying makes you look bad, it just makes you look _human._ We all have moments of weakness, including me. Get over it, seriously.


----------



## MNiS

Abraxas said:


> And yet again you avoid simply backing up your accusation with any kind of evidence by repeating "it's obvious, it's obvious!"
> 
> No MNiS, it's not at all obvious.


Yes it is. Here's the context:



Entropic said:


> It's like you have incredible issues seeing people for what they are outside of the type portraits you read about how they should be; if people do not fit those portraits based on your perception of the type you are more likely to think they are another type instead of accepting that perhaps they are just a less stereotypical example of that type. It reeks of Ti thinking and a lower order one to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> Abraxas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm noticing the same thing. Lower order Ti, probably connected to Te being the PoLR.
> 
> Always the most sensitive spot invokes the most exaggerated emotions. The proverbial "button" you have only to apply a little pressure to before that person gets hysterical.
> 
> Maybe SEI or IEI?
> 
> Lol, okay. Thanks for letting us know.
Click to expand...

Referencing me then making off hand statements makes it pretty clear you were referring to me. I have already asked you not to speak of me in such a way again. I would appreciate it if you obliged.



Abraxas said:


> Oh well, I suppose I will just have to accept I am a dumb fool because I don't see what you see.


Perhaps you are.



Abraxas said:


> Coming from the one who can't even back up anything they say with a reasonable argument?
> 
> Kettle, meet pot.


Sigh.



Abraxas said:


> MNiS, the only person who has been "harassing" or "bullying" anyone in this discussion is you, and if anyone ought to do the reporting, it's the people _you_ are harassing. Namely, me.
> 
> I came into this discussion making a point to Entropic that was not even directed at you, but you projected your ego into it because you saw a correlation between it and yourself - that was a connection you made in your mind. And while your behavior may have inspired me to make the observation, it was a universal observation that just as well applies to me, or Entropic, or anyone for that matter. But you took it personally because _you feel threatened_ and that has nothing to do with me.
> 
> I have not called you a bitch or a juvenile, nor have I even complained so far about you. It does not even bother me that you feel the need to lash out. Honestly, we all have our moments, it's fine. No hard feelings, MNiS, because I understand why you're doing it and I empathize.
> 
> You've got a group of people who aren't cutting you any slack right now and criticising your arguments, debating with you. Nobody enjoys dissonance, MNiS. I hate it too. I just don't _sympathize_ with it, because to give you any sympathy for it would be to condone it and reinforce it. You need to stop being defensive and just come up with better arguments or drop it instead of acting like you are, which is immature and pointless.
> 
> And stop trying to marginalize yourself as if there were some kind of _factions_ here. I don't even know @_Entropic_ or @_Amaterasu_, or @_Word Dispenser_, or any of the people thanking my posts apart from a handful of posts I've seen them make and even less than that which I've actually replied to. Again, this isn't some ridiculous conspiracy, nor do I belong to any kind of clique here where I'm ganging up against you. I disagree with Entropic about as much as I agree with him, and we've had words between us just the same, although there doesn't seem to be a grudge over it the way you're reacting either.
> 
> Maybe you need a break, MNiS?
> 
> Really, just chill out and stop defending yourself.
> 
> You're fine. Let it go. Nothing I am saying makes you look bad, it just makes you look _human._ We all have moments of weakness, including me. Get over it, seriously.


----------



## Abraxas

MNiS said:


> Yes it is. Here's the context:
> 
> 
> 
> Abraxas said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm noticing the same thing. Lower order Ti, probably connected to Te being the PoLR.
> 
> Always the most sensitive spot invokes the most exaggerated emotions. The proverbial "button" you have only to apply a little pressure to before that person gets hysterical.
> 
> Maybe SEI or IEI?
> 
> 
> 
> Referencing me then making off hand statements makes it pretty clear you were referring to me. I have already asked you not to speak of me in such a way again. I would appreciate it if you obliged.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understood perfectly the connection you drew the moment you already pointed it out pages ago. I'm not confused about it or what occurred. I understand that you took a general statement personally because you saw how it related to you. But, what you're _ignoring_ is that I am repeatedly trying to tell you that _it was not meant as a personal attack_, it was an _observation of a universal fact that applies to every PoLR._ Yet you're trying to defend... what, exactly? That you took it personally? _Nobody is disputing that you took it personally._ That is really... pretty obvious!

... Yeesh! :laughing:



Lol, anyway, apparently we're not even on the same page here, MNiS.

I'm asking you to clarify _this_ statement:



MNiS said:


> I suppose this is what happens when someone who can't see straight teams up with a clear loser.
> 
> Also, your "scientific observations" are juvenile. They may work on someone of your intelligence level but puh-lease.



I repeat again, _what am I not seeing?_ Are you saying my observations are inaccurate? Have I said anything untrue in this discussion? Or are you saying that I've made inaccurate statements about Socionics in the past, in some other discussion perhaps?

Or maybe I'm not reading it right. Are you saying I'm the clear loser, and Entropic is the one who can't see straight and he's teamed up with me?

I think we can put that to rest very easily, right?


...

... Hey, @_Entropic_!

Are we on a team, man? Did you team up with me and didn't tell me?

(I wonder if he knows, since if I'm the clear loser, that would make him the one who can't see straight!)


... Moving on,

What "scientific observations" have I made in this discussion? Are you referring to my passing remark about the behavior of PoLR functions? I would hardly call that "scientific" - I was merely reciting one of the basics of Model A. It's not like I did an experiment or something to prove it and here I am waving around a thesis paper. Lol.

Or do you mean my speculation about your type? I wouldn't call that very 'scientific' either, MNiS. I just had a hunch, that's all. You didn't even ask me why, and I really wouldn't have been ready to explain why if you had. It's not exactly as if I'm confident about my conjecture, it obviously wasn't meant as a very meaningful statement to begin with. Who would take such an off-hand observation so seriously? Really? Are you worried about it or something? If so, maybe I'm right. If you're not even confident of your own type, why should I be?


----------



## Entropic

Abraxas said:


> ... Hey, @Entropic!
> 
> Are we on a team, man? Did you team up with me and didn't tell me?


I thought you were the one who teamed up with me since you responded after I did so clearly you must have been the one who teamed up with me because obviously I'm some cult leader according to some on this forum, who possess amazing brainwashing powers to make people think like I do lol. And on the question whether that comment is serious or not, you can take a guess about its accuracy.


----------



## Abraxas

Entropic said:


> I thought you were the one who teamed up with me since you responded after I did so clearly you must have been the one who teamed up with me.


I guess that makes you the clear loser then.


----------



## MNiS

Abraxas said:


> Yes, I understood perfectly the connection you drew the moment you already pointed it out pages ago. I'm not confused about it or what occurred. I understand that you took a general statement personally because you saw how it related to you. But, what you're _ignoring_ is that I am repeatedly trying to tell you that _it was not meant as a personal attack_, it was an _observation of a universal fact that applies to every PoLR._ Yet you're trying to defend... what, exactly? That you took it personally? _Nobody is disputing that you took it personally._ That is really... pretty obvious!
> 
> ... Yeesh! :laughing:


It's not a personal attack. Threatening to hit someone's PoLR is a hostile statement and in no way an innocent remark, especially when you're clearing talking about me. However, maybe I overreacted because I was already annoyed because of Entropic's post.



Abraxas said:


> Lol, anyway, apparently we're not even on the same page here, MNiS.
> 
> I'm asking you to clarify _this_ statement:
> 
> I repeat again, _what am I not seeing?_ Are you saying my observations are inaccurate? Have I said anything untrue in this discussion? Or are you saying that I've made inaccurate statements about Socionics in the past, in some other discussion perhaps?
> 
> Or maybe I'm not reading it right. Are you saying I'm the clear loser, and Entropic is the one who can't see straight and he's teamed up with me?
> 
> I think we can put that to rest very easily, right?


It was something I said out of anger. Why are you trying to make sense of it? 




Abraxas said:


> ... Hey, @_Entropic_!
> 
> Are we on a team, man? Did you team up with me and didn't tell me?
> 
> (I wonder if he knows, since if I'm the clear loser, that would make him the one who can't see straight!)


Hahah, well at least you have a better sense of humor than he does.



Abraxas said:


> ... Moving on,
> 
> What "scientific observations" have I made in this discussion? Are you referring to my passing remark about the behavior of PoLR functions? I would hardly call that "scientific" - I was merely reciting one of the basics of Model A. It's not like I did an experiment or something to prove it and here I am waving around a thesis paper. Lol.
> 
> Or do you mean my speculation about your type? I wouldn't call that very 'scientific' either, MNiS. I just had a hunch, that's all. You didn't even ask me why, and I really wouldn't have been ready to explain why if you had. It's not exactly as if I'm confident about my conjecture, it obviously wasn't meant as a very meaningful statement to begin with. Who would take such an off-hand observation so seriously? Really? Are you worried about it or something? If so, maybe I'm right. If you're not even confident of your own type, why should I be?


This line: "I'm noticing the same thing. Lower order Ti, probably connected to Te being the PoLR.

Always the most sensitive spot invokes the most exaggerated emotions. The proverbial "button" you have only to apply a little pressure to before that person gets hysterical."

Do you seriously not understand why that would be offensive to someone? To talk about someone as if they're a test subject and that you may just so happen to run an experiment on them? Also yes, I have had my PoLR severely pressured before so I know it's not a pleasant feeling. I wouldn't say it's torture but a constant low level stressor that's insidious in nature because you can never pinpoint why it's so stressful.

Do you also talk about people like that in person too? No, you'd never say shit like that to someone in person so don't try to make it sound like you were simply making an innocent remark.


----------



## Abraxas

MNiS said:


> Do you seriously not understand why that would be offensive to someone? To talk about someone as if they're a test subject and that you may just so happen to run an experiment on them? Also yes, I have had my PoLR severely pressured before so I know it's not a pleasant feeling. I wouldn't say it's torture but a constant low level stressor that's insidious in nature because you can never pinpoint why it's so stressful.


I understand exactly why it was offensive to you, and from that I can infer why someone similar to you would find it offensive, but I don't at all generalize your reaction to the whole of mankind. That's just you trying to make it seem as if your reaction was normal. And now that I understand a bit more about you, I can imagine it would be a normal reaction for someone like you. But, you don't need to try and make your behavior seem general to _everyone_ in order to justify it, and that would just be an argument to the majority anyway; It doesn't make it make sense just because there are a thousand people like you. It's still completely unnecessary.

It is called a victimization complex. Probably due to, as you say, the noxious experience you've had in the past that has conditioned this response in you. However, that is not my fault, and so I do not feel any guilt about having stepped on your toes by making a general observation that happened to apply to you. Your attempt at producing a feeling of _shame_ by framing me as having done something unethical is absurd given the facts, and given the context that you have just now yourself admitted to.

If your only concern is that I will repeat the offense, I can't exactly promise you that I won't, but I can promise you it won't be intentional, as it was not even intentional to begin with in this case. I have no interest in going around fucking with people for my own amusement, MNiS. I am not some kind of psychopathic sadist or whatever, as you are clearly projecting me to be out of your own fears that have nothing to do with me. To the extent that I have been intentionally patronizing you during our exchange, I was doing so to try and get you to lighten up. Obviously, I was not taking any of this very seriously - but you certainly were.

In the future I have absolutely no interest in going through a ridiculous fiasco like this with you again. Therefore, you can be certain I will be avoiding engaging you in any kind of serious discussion lest I once again offend you inadvertently, since I couldn't care less about putting on the pretense of sympathy for your unconscious problems, especially when you try to put the guilt of those problems onto the people that _*trigger*_ those weaknesses, instead of simply dealing with those weaknesses head on.




MNiS said:


> Do you also talk about people like that in person too? No, you'd never say shit like that to someone in person so don't try to make it sound like you were simply making an innocent remark.


If what you've been after this whole time, and what you want in the future, is a group wearing soft mittens and walking on eggshells around you, I suggest maybe you hang out in a different quadra (maybe the betas or alphas), as that kind of expectation really goes against the grain here in gamma land.

I do not feel in the slightest bit comfortable having to tailor what I say, and pull my blows in a debate, and do you know why, MNiS? Not because I am some asshole who gets a high off abusing others, but because I _respect my interlocutor._ It would be a sign of _disrespect and condescension_ if I were to refrain from saying exactly what I think. It would be as if to say, "I think you are a weak person who can't handle the truth." It would be _manipulative at best_ to not say exactly what I thought and let them sort it out themselves, and I expect the same treatment from them as well because I am not at all comfortable with the thought that someone else is putting on a facade for me. I want a real discussion, and I'm not afraid to lock horns with a real opponent who has a strong argument to throw down, even if they're a snarling bull with a lot of passion behind it. That's fine, it just feels like even more of a challenge. I welcome it.


----------



## Word Dispenser

@Abraxas: Actually, I _do _think that what you and Entropic did with that 'lil, "Hmm, yesyes, Ti PoLR. I concur." thing was a bit rude. It's kind of equivalent to talking about someone as if they're not even there, and that their own opinion has no validity. I'd probably be a bit cross, myself, if someone did that, and didn't even include me in the conversation. 

The least you could've done was posit questions to her, and include her in the discussion about her, instead of effectively alienating her. I see that kind of stuff on the forums all the time, and I rather dislike it. It seems like passive aggressive gang behaviour. 

So, I _do _think the response to it was normal.

Just my two cents. Maybe I have a victimization complex as well, though, so, y'know, take it with a grain of salt. :kitteh:


----------



## Abraxas

Word Dispenser said:


> @_Abraxas_: Actually, I _do _think that what you and Entropic did with that 'lil, "Hmm, yesyes, Ti PoLR. I concur." thing was a bit rude. It's kind of equivalent to talking about someone as if they're not even there, and that their own opinion has no validity. I'd probably be a bit cross, myself, if someone did that, and didn't even include me in the conversation.
> 
> The least you could've done was posit questions to her, and include her in the discussion about her, instead of effectively alienating her. I see that kind of stuff on the forums all the time, and I rather dislike it. It seems like passive aggressive gang behaviour.
> 
> So, I _do _think the response to it was normal.
> 
> Just my two cents. Maybe I have a victimization complex as well, though, so, y'know, take it with a grain of salt. :kitteh:


Lol, maybe!

I don't think so though. And yes, it is perfectly normal for people like MNiS (and yourself I guess?). :tongue:

In fact, it's a very _feeling_ induced kind of observation in general. "That isn't very agreeable!"

But, like I said, I consider it a sign of disrespect if someone goes out of their way to "look out" for my feelings. It's absolutely rude and condescending for them to be doing that, and I think it's absolutely rude and condescending for me to do it for them. I don't like being treated like a pansy, and I don't treat others like that either. And I'm not in a minority that I'd consider small enough to warrant expecting me to feel ashamed for standing up for myself like I did.

But people who _do_ expect that kind of thing come across as being always on a damned crusade to try and make people like me think I was being a dick for not pampering them, as if that were just the one and only way to look at it, which is totally absurd. And honestly, I couldn't care less if they just point it out on the surface because frankly I don't care about _them_. It's when they try to _crucify_ me in front of a group for it that I take offense.

At that point it becomes like, "Oh, lordy. Really? Well here we go."

_EDIT: Come to think of it, maybe it's a regional thing? This reminds me of the kinds of disputes I'd get into with my friends from California. Seems like it could be an East Coast vs West Coast kind of attitude. I've got friends from New York for example who'd probably think what you guys are saying is a joke, and if anything they'd probably insult me for even wasting time trying to explain myself to you.

You wouldn't happen to be from Cali?_


----------



## Word Dispenser

Abraxas said:


> Lol, maybe!
> 
> I don't think so though. And yes, it is perfectly normal for people like MNiS (and yourself I guess?).
> 
> In fact, it's a very _feeling_ induced kind of observation in general. "That isn't very agreeable!"
> 
> But, like I said, I consider it a sign of disrespect if someone goes out of their way to "look out" for my feelings. It's absolutely rude and condescending for them to be doing that, and I think it's absolutely rude and condescending for me to do it for them. I don't like being treated like a pansy, and I don't treat others like that either. And I'm not in a minority that I'd consider small enough to warrant expecting me to feel ashamed for standing up for myself like I did.
> 
> But people who _do_ expect that kind of thing come across as being always on a damned crusade to try and make people like me think I was being a dick for not pampering them, as if that were just the one and only way to look at it, which is totally absurd. And honestly, I couldn't care less if they just point it out on the surface because frankly I don't care about _them_. It's when they try to _crucify_ me in front of a group for it that I take offense.
> 
> At that point it becomes like, "Oh, lordy. Really? Well here we go."


Well, maybe I'm a feeler, I dunno. I've often thought IEE wouldn't be out of the ballpark for me. If only I wasn't such a poster child for Alpha. :laughing:

In any case, you simply look at a discussion in a different way, I suppose. 

I'm not necessarily looking out for someone's feelings, but I tend towards being respectful, unless they're being disrespectful to me. And even then, I try not to resort to name-calling... Which also happens on the forums quite a bit. roud: 

And, well, I like to step in when things are getting out of hand, and it seems like pretty much everyone is tearing into MNIS, for reasons unknown at this point.

I haven't really been following the conversation between you two, but it struck me that your response to her rather reasonable complaint was a bit illogical. I mean, even this 'people like you' business seems a bit odd to me, because I'm fairly sure just about anyone in the same position would react similarly--Caustic.

If I were in your position, I'd probably have acknowledged the way I'd done things, instead of trying to defend it, but hey.

However-- I _do _think that bringing that into a debate about... Whatever it's about, seems to be getting more personal-attacky than it should. 

On the other hand, I mean, both of you seem to be exchanging blows at this point, instead of actually discussing anything interesting. roud:

I'd totally understand if MNIS was offended for me jumping in like this... But... I suppose I saw a bit of injustice, and wanted to point it out.


----------



## MNiS

Abraxas said:


> I understand exactly why it was offensive to you, and from that I can infer why someone similar to you would find it offensive, but I don't at all generalize your reaction to the whole of mankind. That's just you trying to make it seem as if your reaction was normal. And now that I understand a bit more about you, I can imagine it would be a normal reaction for someone like you. But, you don't need to try and make your behavior seem general to _everyone_ in order to justify it, and that would just be an argument to the majority anyway; It doesn't make it make sense just because there are a thousand people like you. It's still completely unnecessary.


Well... thanks for at least not being a dickhead.



Abraxas said:


> It is called a victimization complex. Probably due to, as you say, the noxious experience you've had in the past that has conditioned this response in you. However, that is not my fault, and so I do not feel any guilt about having stepped on your toes by making a general observation that happened to apply to you. Your attempt at producing a feeling of _shame_ by framing me as having done something unethical is absurd given the facts, and given the context that you have just now yourself admitted to.


I'm not trying to guilt you or shame you at all. If you think talking about someone like they're your guinea pig is only offensive to someone because they have a "_victimization complex_" then you really are a fool. Also, your victimization complex is utter bullshit. What you said was just douch-y, plain and simple.



Abraxas said:


> If your only concern is that I will repeat the offense, I can't exactly promise you that I won't, but I can promise you it won't be intentional, as it was not even intentional to begin with in this case. I have no interest in going around fucking with people for my own amusement, MNiS. I am not some kind of psychopathic sadist or whatever, as you are clearly projecting me to be out of your own fears that have nothing to do with me. To the extent that I have been intentionally patronizing you during our exchange, I was doing so to try and get you to lighten up. Obviously, I was not taking any of this very seriously - but you certainly were.


I can mock people too you know. I consider that to be childish behavior though so I'll abstain.



Abraxas said:


> In the future I have absolutely no interest in going through a ridiculous fiasco like this with you again. Therefore, you can be certain I will be avoiding engaging you in any kind of serious discussion lest I once again offend you inadvertently, since I couldn't care less about putting on the pretense of sympathy for your unconscious problems, especially when you try to put the guilt of those problems onto the people that _*trigger*_ those weaknesses, instead of simply dealing with those weaknesses head on.


Once again, I have no interest in trying to guilt you. I can joke and mess around just fine. What you wrote was simply dehumanizing. Maybe you didn't realize it because you thought you were being cool or something. Anyway, consider it a weakness if you want. I don't really care.



Abraxas said:


> If what you've been after this whole time, and what you want in the future, is a group wearing soft mittens and walking on eggshells around you, I suggest maybe you hang out in a different quadra (maybe the betas or alphas), as that kind of expectation really goes against the grain here in gamma land.


Thank you for your concern but I'm exactly where I want to be, Socionically speaking. I've already made the mistake of thinking I was an Alpha before and ended up wasting a bunch of my time (and I like Alphas just fine). Betas as individuals are fun people to hang out with but yeah, I'm a Serious type. I'm not sure what stereotype of Gamma you're thinking about but it clearly doesn't apply to me.



Abraxas said:


> I do not feel in the slightest bit comfortable having to tailor what I say, and pull my blows in a debate, and do you know why, MNiS? Not because I am some asshole who gets a high off abusing others, but because I _respect my interlocutor._ It would be a sign of _disrespect and condescension_ if I were to refrain from saying exactly what I think. It would be as if to say, "I think you are a weak person who can't handle the truth." It would be _manipulative at best_ to not say exactly what I thought and let them sort it out themselves, and I expect the same treatment from them as well because I am not at all comfortable with the thought that someone else is putting on a facade for me.


Dude, I'm not asking anyone to be fake. I mean, I can see where you're coming from but it's like uhh... really, you can't fullfill a simple request? Or if that's too much to ask of then how about this: Don't talk about me in the third person. I find that to be rude. Especially when the discussion is being done out of spite due to some disagreements in earlier conversations.



Abraxas said:


> I want a real discussion, and I'm not afraid to lock horns with a real opponent who has a strong argument to throw down, even if they're a snarling bull with a lot of passion behind it. That's fine, it just feels like even more of a challenge. I welcome it.


Um, okay bro. If you want to debate something then maybe you should head to the Critical Thinking or Debate subforum. Or I don't know, maybe there is someone out there who actually wants to argue about Socionics.


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> @Abraxas: Actually, I _do _think that what you and Entropic did with that 'lil, "Hmm, yesyes, Ti PoLR. I concur." thing was a bit rude. It's kind of equivalent to talking about someone as if they're not even there, and that their own opinion has no validity. I'd probably be a bit cross, myself, if someone did that, and didn't even include me in the conversation.
> 
> The least you could've done was posit questions to her, and include her in the discussion about her, instead of effectively alienating her. I see that kind of stuff on the forums all the time, and I rather dislike it. It seems like passive aggressive gang behaviour.
> 
> So, I _do _think the response to it was normal.
> 
> Just my two cents. Maybe I have a victimization complex as well, though, so, y'know, take it with a grain of salt. :kitteh:


To be fair though, my response to MNiS was very unrelated to whatever Abraxas later came and chimed in on. I did offer a type observation, what people do with that is up to them to decide. It may have seen like Abraxas was in lieu with me but he was not. He was acting independently and hence I have refrained from participating further in this discussion in addition to feeling I have said all I wanted to say about the matter.

I also want to add that since they were essentially pushing me into a corner where I was forced to agree with them on a type-basis (as an ILI I should think such and such about them), I felt I needed to mark my space and where I clearly stand on this, whether that is offensive or not. The situation pretty much warranted it. Not going to walk on eggshells, especially not when they make such implicit remarks about my relationship. I am not going to align myself with someone for type-reasons i.e. we are having a favorable type relationship, therefore we should agree and support each other. Fuck that. I support individuals, not types and respect and support is something one earns, not given out for free.


----------



## Abraxas

Word Dispenser said:


> I haven't really been following the conversation between you two, but it struck me that your response to her rather reasonable complaint was a bit illogical. I mean, even this 'people like you' business seems a bit odd to me, because I'm fairly sure just about anyone in the same position would react similarly--Caustic.


But that's just it you see. It is caustic - but the generalization you (and MNiS) are making, that, "just about anyone" would react similarly, reflects a confirmation bias that is causing you to make a _hasty generalization._ I _highly_ doubt you've done a comparative study of "just about everyone" on the planet, so what's actually happening is that you're generalizing from your anecdotal personal experience to make a sweeping conclusion about the norms and values of society. Without even trying, I could think of a handful of factors that might explain why most of the people with whom you've interacted and who you recall would all share your values. I mean, for one thing, we tend not to want to group with people who don't.

And by the way, thank you for being level and discussing this with me, it's really - I think - kind of central to what I had in mind when I posted the quadra threads. These are meant to be little social experiments where we can observe each other and how we interact, and from the start I had hoped people from other quadras would cross over and join in the discussions happening in different quadras so we could see the clear contrasts happening.

My reaction isn't at all illogical, except perhaps for the addendum I edited into my post where I mention that my less invested friends would probably tell me not to waste my time like this trying to discuss the subject. And that's fine, I can see how it would appear illogical to them, but I love psychology, so when situations like this crop up, I love discussing them and analyzing them.

Specifically, this [iis[/i] the gamma quadra, and if there was one place on the whole internet where I'd expect I could be myself the most, it's right here in this thread, for all to see. The fact that I'm being criticized for it actually delights me, because now I've had the chance to really illustrate an aspect of gamma behavior and mentality very clearly. You always read about this sort of thing in the text, but right here, now you've caught a glimpse of it in action, you see?

I'm really very happy with how this turned out so far. I'm curious to see if, or how MNiS will respond next.

_EDIT: Oh look, a reply! Let's see. roud:_


----------



## Word Dispenser

@_Entropic_: Makes sense! I mean, from what I remember-- You posited _your _opinion to MNIS, whereas Abraxas was positing his opinion to you. So, the injustice I saw was coming mostly from Abraxas, but then, I might be remembering this wrong.



Abraxas said:


> But that's just it you see. It is caustic - but the generalization you (and MNiS) are making, that, "just about anyone" would react similarly, reflects a confirmation bias that is causing you to make a _hasty generalization._ I _highly_ doubt you've done a comparative study of "just about everyone" on the planet, so what's actually happening is that you're generalizing from your anecdotal personal experience to make a sweeping conclusion about the norms and values of society.


Hmm, that's kind of interesting... I've never done a poll on the forums before... roud: I do think that this would be a majority, but I'd be pleasantly surprised if it wasn't.



> And by the way, thank you for being level and discussing this with me, it's really - I think - kind of central to what I had in mind when I posted the quadra threads. These are meant to be little social experiments where we can observe each other and how we interact, and from the start I had hoped people from other quadras would cross over and join in the discussions happening in different quadras so we could see the clear contrasts happening.


Sure. Agreed. I like to hop around on all the Quadra threads, as evidenced by... Well, me hopping around on all the Quadra threads. Sadly, the Alpha thread is often quiet. Maybe because the other Alphas are doing the same thing. roud:



> My reaction isn't at all illogical, except perhaps for the addendum I edited into my post where I mention that my less invested friends would probably tell me not to waste my time like this trying to discuss the subject. And that's fine, I can see how it would appear illogical to them, but I love psychology, so when situations like this crop up, I love discussing them and analyzing them.


Discussion and analysis, wootwoot. Bring in a friendly video game war and we've got a party. roud:



> Specifically, this [iis[/i] the gamma quadra, and if there was one place on the whole internet where I'd expect I could be myself the most, it's right here in this thread, for all to see. The fact that I'm being criticized for it actually delights me, because now I've had the chance to really illustrate an aspect of gamma behavior and mentality very clearly. You always read about this sort of thing in the text, but right here, now you've caught a glimpse of it in action, you see?


Sure thing. Although, one can't always expect mass agreement from their quadra, I suppose, one would at least _expect _to be most comfortable in that arena.



> I'm really very happy with how this turned out so far. I'm curious to see if, or how MNiS will respond next.
> 
> _EDIT: Oh look, a reply! Let's see. roud:_


Me too! Your enthusiasm seems almost Fe-like. :laughing:


----------



## Abraxas

MNiS said:


> I'm not trying to guilt you or shame you at all. If you think talking about someone like they're your guinea pig is only offensive to someone because they have a "_victimization complex_" then you really are a fool. Also, your victimization complex is utter bullshit. What you said was just douch-y, plain and simple.


Again, why do you see this need to generalize your reaction and justify it by showing how extraverted it was? That is an error, for the same reason I pointed out in my response just now to @_Word Dispenser_. You, and your ethical standard, does not necessarily represent the norms of society. It represents the norms _that you are aware of._ In fact, I already presented the possibility of it being a _regional dissonance_ in light of the possibility that environmental factors such as being born in a certain place or time played a part. And you won't even _entertain_ that possibility? Lol, whatever. I probably _am_ wasting my time.




MNiS said:


> I can mock people too you know. I consider that to be childish behavior though so I'll abstain.


Lol, well good for you then. Live your values. But don't pretend you're more mature than people who don't.




MNiS said:


> Once again, I have no interest in trying to guilt you. I can joke and mess around just fine. What you wrote was simply dehumanizing. Maybe you didn't realize it because you thought you were being cool or something. Anyway, consider it a weakness if you want. I don't really care.


I won't deny I'm having fun here, but that's because this is all very illuminating and also beside the point.

The fact that you view what I wrote as "simply dehumanizing" shows how you are trying to _extravert_ your perspective, and this statement:



MNiS said:


> I can mock people too you know. I consider that to be childish behavior though so I'll abstain.


... obviously shows a contradiction, since you have it both ways. Either they're _your_ values you're upholding, or you're just _conforming_ to an external standard. Which is it, MNiS?




MNiS said:


> I'm not sure what stereotype of Gamma you're thinking about but it clearly doesn't apply to me.


Yes, it quite clearly doesn't does it? I'm glad we agree then.




MNiS said:


> Dude, I'm not asking anyone to be fake. I mean, I can see where you're coming from but it's like uhh... really, you can't fullfill a simple request? Or if that's too much to ask of then how about this: Don't talk about me in the third person. I find that to be rude. Especially when the discussion is being done out of spite due to some disagreements in earlier conversations.


Do you really think I consider your request to be that big a deal MNiS? Perhaps you ignored what I said: I said it's done. Of course it won't be a problem, because as I already stated, in light of this fiasco, I'm not even going to be bothered with it.




MNiS said:


> Um, okay bro. If you want to debate something then maybe you should head to the Critical Thinking or Debate subforum. Or I don't know, maybe there is someone out there who actually wants to argue about Socionics.


I think our little spat is probably the most Socionics related topic to have been discussed in this thread in quite some time actually. You should go back and read it one of these days in the future after we've had a dozen or so more pages of topics that have nothing to do with anything.


----------



## Abraxas

Word Dispenser said:


> Me too! Your enthusiasm seems almost Fe-like. :laughing:



Sometimes I wonder! I think I display Fe when I get excited. Do you think that might be an ILE thing? I'm still learning about Socionics. I'm not at all certain of my sociotype yet.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Abraxas said:


> Sometimes I wonder! I think I display Fe when I get excited. Do you think that might be an ILE thing? I'm still learning about Socionics. I'm not at all certain of my sociotype yet.


Hmm, well, I know that I get rambunctious, loud, and impossibly Ne-Fe when I'm excited. And then incoherence follows... But, hey, I'm just one ILE. roud:


----------



## Abraxas

Word Dispenser said:


> Hmm, well, I know that I get rambunctious, loud, and impossibly Ne-Fe when I'm excited. And then incoherence follows... But, hey, I'm just one ILE. roud:


I would tend to think maybe even ILI's can get excited sometimes? The stereotypes are, afterall, just stereotypes.

And on that note of stereotypes, wouldn't you agree that my line of reasoning (in my defense thus far) does more or less line up with:



> When discussing important matters, ILIs often betray a harsh, critical perspective on viewpoints and ideas that they find particularly stupid or insensible. *ILIs do not attach emotions to factual information, and so do not consider such criticism to be offensive. If confronted with somebody whose intelligence, persona, or ideas they do not respect, they may react in a hostile fashion, which can be perceived as arrogant or insensitive; not all ILIs, obviously, will react this way.*
> 
> ILIs' reactions to the sphere of emotions can vary greatly, but they are particularly apparent in the sphere of social relations. ILIs are typically not social creatures. Some do not understand the importance of social connections and choose to ignore the area of emotional involvement with others altogether, instead delving into virtual reality, mystical introspection, or private study. Others trudge through the social landscape without truly understanding the art of socialization, ignoring politeness and not caring about offending others. *ILIs may view people who constantly try to make others happy as foolishly involving themselves in a completely pointless exercise.*




And yes, inb4 "lulz, wikisocion." I have heard that these type descriptions from Wikisocion are atrocious. But at least in this case, I think that's rather on the money. I strongly identify with those bits at least. The rest of the type description of the other functions and roles... well, I'm not sure. I'm by no means a Socionics expert, but I myself deviate a lot from it.

So far my type is based more or less on a thin line of reasoning, and mostly my intuition, since I _really_ identify with the whole temporal descriptions of Ni, and really just Ni from a Jungian perspective as well.

And also, coming from Jung, I identify with his descriptions of sensation as my inferior function. I definitely grapple with accurately recalling or noticing facts and feeling unmotivated to engage the sensate realm of outer things and responsibilities.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Abraxas said:


> I would tend to think maybe even ILI's can get excited sometimes? The stereotypes are, afterall, just stereotypes.
> 
> And on that note of stereotypes, wouldn't you agree that my line of reasoning (in my defense thus far) does more or less line up with:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, inb4 "lulz, wikisocion." I have heard that these type descriptions from Wikisocion are atrocious. But at least in this case, I think that's rather on the money. I strongly identify with those bits at least. The rest of the type description of the other functions and roles... well, I'm not sure. I'm by no means a Socionics expert, but I myself deviate a lot from it.
> 
> So far my type is based more or less on a thin line of reasoning, and mostly my intuition, since I _really_ identify with the whole temporal descriptions of Ni, and really just Ni from a Jungian perspective as well.
> 
> And also, coming from Jung, I identify with his descriptions of sensation as my inferior function. I definitely grapple with accurately recalling or noticing facts and feeling unmotivated to engage the sensate realm of outer things and responsibilities.


Yes, I generally lean away from stereotyping. 

I _am _one of those rare individuals where I've gotten ENTp on nearly every test, and whether that's from my own bias or not, meh. Sometimes you just fit into the mold of certain descriptions, I guess. 

It's difficult to think of myself as a logical person, because in the everyday world, I'm pretty sure that most wouldn't see me as logical at all (But, doesn't that make sense, being Ne-leading? I don't know.)

Recently, I think I was called logical for the first time, and that kinda made me go, "Huh." PRIDE. I AM LOGICAL, YAY. It was, of course, in an academic situation. I'm quite enthusiastic about school and teacher discourse.

Wasn't it written somewhere that if someone compliments you on your creative function, it tends to hit the hardest? Or was that something else?

Maybe I'm an ESE, after all. Ah well, I try not to dwell on doubts. They tend to circle back to ILE eventually.


----------



## Abraxas

Word Dispenser said:


> Recently, I think I was called logical for the first time, and that kinda made me go, "Huh." PRIDE. I AM LOGICAL, YAY. It was, of course, in an academic situation. I'm quite enthusiastic about school and teacher discourse.
> 
> Wasn't it written somewhere that if someone compliments you on your creative function, it tends to hit the hardest? Or was that something else?
> 
> Maybe I'm an ESE, after all. Ah well, I try not to dwell on doubts. They tend to circle back to ILE eventually.


I'm not sure. I may just be taking a pessimistic view, but from what I've studied in Jung and also the way Marie-Louise Von Franz characterizes the inferior function (and the auxiliary to the inferior function; the tertiary), people who feel very proud when they get a compliment about a function usually indicates an unconscious feeling of inferiority about it, since they ordinarily doubt it in themselves (what with it being poorly differentiated and all). People who know what they're good at usually don't react that extremely one way or the other towards a remark concerning it, because they don't need to be told their business so to speak. Lol.

Again, I might be being selective, but that's definitely what I've read. I can cite the passages if you like. I found them interesting to think about myself. At least in my case, looking at my own ego and looking for the places where _emotions_ show themselves the strongest indicates which functions are _less differentiated_ since, according to Jung, emotions come from a person's unconscious, and therefore the more unconscious (and thus less differentiated) the function, the more entangled it becomes with emotions.

But also this is just Jung. I'm still learning Socionics, so I don't know how helpful any of that would be in determining your sociotype.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Abraxas said:


> I'm not sure. I may just be taking a pessimistic view, but from what I've studied in Jung and also the way Marie-Louise Von Franz characterizes the inferior function (and the auxiliary to the inferior function; the tertiary), people who feel very proud when they get a compliment about a function usually indicates an unconscious feeling of inferiority about it, since they ordinarily doubt it in themselves (what with it being poorly differentiated and all). People who know what they're good at usually don't react that extremely one way or the other towards a remark concerning it, because they don't need to be told their business so to speak. Lol.
> 
> Again, I might be being selective, but that's definitely what I've read. I can cite the passages if you like. I found them interesting to think about myself. At least in my case, looking at my own ego and looking for the places where _emotions_ show themselves the strongest indicates which functions are _less differentiated_ since, according to Jung, emotions come from a person's unconscious, and therefore the more unconscious (and thus less differentiated) the function, the more entangled it becomes with emotions.
> 
> But also this is just Jung. I'm still learning Socionics, so I don't know how helpful any of that would be in determining your sociotype.


Well, I have a _lot _of flaws to choose from. 

Generally, I tend to react most to compliments that have anything to do with non-emotional things, because I don't really place much value in being a 'nice' person, or any other of these positive adjectives having to do with mood and/or relational qualities.

"Jeez, you're nice." ... "Well, thanks. I guess. (Internally: Anyone can be nice. *rolls inside eyes*)"

It's not very often that people compliment ... _Anyone _on mental capacity, anyway... From what I've seen. 

Still, if someone calls me intelligent, that doesn't really affect me. A lot of the time, when someone throws out compliments, it's used to bolster someone's self-esteem and/or relations, or something. 

But, when they explain why/providing examples, in regards to the way I communicate, then that gets my attention.

I remember when I was younger, I reacted strongest to being called rude, or selfish... I'd be very ashamed if I was called such.

And a little later on, because I wasn't particularly good at thinking on my feet and quickly coming up with answers... roud: 

So, I mean.. I have a lot of examples I could think of, and any number of them could mean inferior cognition.

At some point, you have to draw the line. And I seem to show Si DS, and Fi PoLR... Thusfar, that makes the most sense.


----------



## Abraxas

Word Dispenser said:


> It's not very often that people compliment ... _Anyone _on mental capacity, anyway... From what I've seen.
> 
> Still, if someone calls me intelligent, that doesn't really affect me. A lot of the time, when someone throws out compliments, it's used to bolster someone's self-esteem and/or relations, or something.
> 
> But, when they explain why/providing examples, in regards to the way I communicate, then that gets my attention.
> 
> I remember when I was younger, I reacted strongest to being called rude, or selfish... I'd be very ashamed if I was called such.
> 
> And a little later on, because I wasn't particularly good at thinking on my feet and quickly coming up with answers... roud:


A couple of points this brings to mind.

The first is, how you subtly speak to the fact that a lot of people just present their _persona_ and expect it to earn them some _rapport_ with you, but internally you know better. I'm a lot like that too. I can tell a genuine compliment, even when it's given over the internet, from one that's just manufactured to suit. I think that's an important distinction, because how you react to a genuine compliment is what I imagine Jung is after.

The second is how you note that when you were younger you reacted to criticism of your ethics, and then older, criticism of your logic. I'm not sure, would you say you've mellowed out more when it comes to ethical criticisms because you feel wiser and more mature in that regard? That might indicate a better differentiated feeling function, if you believe you're more comfortable there than thinking.

Again though, I stress this is just a Jungian analysis (which I think I am pretty good at). You would have to see what it correlates to in terms of Socionics, as I couldn't say.

It does seem, though, that if you're an intuitive type, that's going to be where Jung predicts receiving a genuine compliment would seem like someone complimenting the fish for swimming in the sea; but, here I hesitate in agreeing with Jung's symmetrical prediction, because although what he predicts makes sense on paper, we also have to consider the strong bias in American culture for sensation, which means that an intuitive type is probably going to lack a lot of encouragement there as well. So, maybe a compliment to their insight would seem to count more than a compliment to their thinking or feeling, even though those would only be auxiliaries, and therefore areas they struggle in; I'm not sure.

So in that regard, I would say, it might be useful to look at the inferior - wherever you feel you really do "suck"; If you're an intuitive type, it would probably be the physical realm, either your grasp of facts and overlooking external goals/ambitions/responsibilities - or, just being way out of touch with your own body and health and not having a broad _range_ of subjective preferences when it comes to tastes and pleasures.

Because, you see, it's not that the inferior function is lacking in _intensity_ - on the contrary, because it's so unconscious, just whenever it does surface, it tends to be even more intense than the dominant (for the short duration it does); rather, it lacks depth or breadth because it isn't differentiated at all. Thus the _variety_ of tastes and interests for an intuitive type would be very narrow and limited to some specific set of things and nothing else. Whereas someone with dominant sensation would be very sensitive to the _whole world_, you see.


----------



## MNiS

Abraxas said:


> Again, why do you see this need to generalize your reaction and justify it by showing how extraverted it was? That is an error, for the same reason I pointed out in my response just now to @_Word Dispenser_. You, and your ethical standard, does not necessarily represent the norms of society. It represents the norms _that you are aware of._ In fact, I already presented the possibility of it being a _regional dissonance_ in light of the possibility that environmental factors such as being born in a certain place or time played a part. And you won't even _entertain_ that possibility? Lol, whatever. I probably _am_ wasting my time.


It could clearly also have cultural implications too but like I said, I'm not trying to guilt trip anyone. Anyway, try it with someone in person next time; tell them that you can cause a person to react in a way to elicit a heightened emotional response from them because of a stimulus you apply to them. See if that doesn't end up with you in the process of not making friends. 



Abraxas said:


> I won't deny I'm having fun here, but that's because this is all very illuminating and also beside the point.
> 
> The fact that you view what I wrote as "simply dehumanizing" shows how you are trying to _extravert_ your perspective, and this statement:
> 
> ... obviously shows a contradiction, since you have it both ways. Either they're _your_ values you're upholding, or you're just _conforming_ to an external standard. Which is it, MNiS?


Because it's not a contradiction. Pretty clever argument but you're making a pretty weak case that calling you childish is conforming to an external standard. Because it's more of a, "I'm going to take the high road here" rather than due to social conditioning.



Abraxas said:


> Do you really think I consider your request to be that big a deal MNiS? Perhaps you ignored what I said: I said it's done. Of course it won't be a problem, because as I already stated, in light of this fiasco, I'm not even going to be bothered with it.


Great. Thanks and you're actually a pretty nice guy, so cool.



Abraxas said:


> I think our little spat is probably the most Socionics related topic to have been discussed in this thread in quite some time actually. You should go back and read it one of these days in the future after we've had a dozen or so more pages of topics that have nothing to do with anything.


No thanks. I was being particularly nasty this time because your comment really struck a nerve with me. Anyway, the whole thing with Entropic thinking I'm an IEI or SEI was because I was continually using Ti type reasoning when referring to Socionics. Which is true because Socionics itself is an extremely Ti-based theory and yeah I do have to engage my PoLR when talking about it. Just like I had to engage my PoLR when taking my physics, chemistry and logic courses in school. It's stressful but you grow to be better with it over time. However, I think learning the theory is worth it and is worth sifting through some uncomfortable stilted material at times. Plus for whatever reason he apparently was thinking I was making a personal attack against him because I thought his reply to me was simply mind boggling at how unfair it was.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Abraxas said:


> A couple of points this brings to mind.
> 
> The first is, how you subtly speak to the fact that a lot of people just present their _persona_ and expect it to earn them some _rapport_ with you, but internally you know better. I'm a lot like that too. I can tell a genuine compliment, even when it's given over the internet, from one that's just manufactured to suit. I think that's an important distinction, because how you react to a genuine compliment is what I imagine Jung is after.
> 
> The second is how you note that when you were younger you reacted to criticism of your ethics, and then older, criticism of your logic. I'm not sure, would you say you've mellowed out more when it comes to ethical criticisms because you feel wiser and more mature in that regard? That might indicate a better differentiated feeling function, if you believe you're more comfortable there than thinking.
> 
> Again though, I stress this is just a Jungian analysis (which I think I am pretty good at). You would have to see what it correlates to in terms of Socionics, as I couldn't say.
> 
> It does seem, though, that if you're an intuitive type, that's going to be where Jung predicts receiving a genuine compliment would seem like someone complimenting the fish for swimming in the sea; but, here I hesitate in agreeing with Jung's symmetrical prediction, because although what he predicts makes sense on paper, we also have to consider the strong bias in American culture for sensation, which means that an intuitive type is probably going to lack a lot of encouragement there as well. So, maybe a compliment to their insight would seem to count more than a compliment to their thinking or feeling, even though those would only be auxiliaries, and therefore areas they struggle in; I'm not sure.
> 
> So in that regard, I would say, it might be useful to look at the inferior - wherever you feel you really do "suck"; If you're an intuitive type, it would probably be the physical realm, either your grasp of facts and overlooking external goals/ambitions/responsibilities - or, just being way out of touch with your own body and health and not having a broad _range_ of subjective preferences when it comes to tastes and pleasures.
> 
> Because, you see, it's not that the inferior function is lacking in _intensity_ - on the contrary, because it's so unconscious, just whenever it does surface, it tends to be even more intense than the dominant (for the short duration it does); rather, it lacks depth or breadth because it isn't differentiated at all. Thus the _variety_ of tastes and interests for an intuitive type would be very narrow and limited to some specific set of things and nothing else. Whereas someone with dominant sensation would be very sensitive to the _whole world_, you see.


Hmm... Some people still have a tendency to call me rude/selfish, but I've formulated my own opinions, and tend to be a bit stubbornly defensive, rather than offended. I definitely do have an uncertain quality to it, though.

When someone points out a fault in logic, I often don't see what they're talking about, and I don't generally get offended, unless they point out some kind of flaw in my argument, and it seems clear to me. Then, I might get embarrassed.

If I'm being irrational due to being emotional, I tend to fully admit it.

And... Who compliments people on the physical world? "Wow.. You really know how to put together an Ikea table." Or.. "Incredible! You have such a knack for putting a room together in a physically practical way." :laughing:

Man.. _No one _would _ever _compliment me for those things _anyway... _So, if by some miracle that happened, I might be seeing stars for days.

I mean, I am clumsy and have a great deal of difficulty with my physical environment. I'm constantly bumping into things, sitting too hard on objects, and unable to put together Ikea furniture without putting certain things the wrong way, and getting a bit overzealous in the process. :laughing:

Si is such an elusive function, though-- It seems kind of... Difficult to pin down, unless someone has strengths in it. The weaknesses seem more apparent when you're looking at the strength of the Ne-Dom, rather than the Si lower order function. I think.


----------



## Entropic

@Abraxas I hoenstly think you expressed a good example of Fi HA in this thread where you state that you want a social space where you can express yourself and your opinions honestly without judgement. That's not really an Fe sentiment, lol.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

Word Dispenser said:


> Wasn't it written somewhere that if someone compliments you on your creative function, it tends to hit the hardest? Or was that something else?


I think it's the super-ego, actually.

Functions - Wikisocion


> People rarely appreciate direct commentary and analysis of their Super-Ego function behavior except by highly trusted friends. Otherwise, they tend to automatically suspect ill will towards them. Criticism of these aspects of a person's life can produce long-lasting animosity. The person may either vehemently defend himself (too vehemently given the nature of the criticism) or close up and ruminate about the situation for days.
> *Outright praise, on the other hand, produces an unexpected self-esteem boost.*


Or you were thinking of something else, dunno.

From a Jungian perspective, I'm guessing your super-ego would be mostly unconscious, right? I'm not sure how the role function fits in that theory, like, didn't Jung think the inferior would posses a completely opposite orientation to the dominant function? (I'm thinking of that drawing with the functions placed in a circle)


----------



## Abraxas

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> From a Jungian perspective, I'm guessing your super-ego would be mostly unconscious, right? I'm not sure how the role function fits in that theory, like, didn't Jung think the inferior would posses a completely opposite orientation to the dominant function? (I'm thinking of that drawing with the functions placed in a circle)


That's correct. The inferior would always be the opposite of the dominant function band have an opposite attitude. So for instance, a dominant introverted thinker would have an inferior extraverted feeling. Jung thought that the relationship between the dominant and the inferior was such that the inferior was the most unconscious and thus the least differentiated function, and therefore it was (as Marie-Louise Von Franz puts it), "like an open door without a lock through which all the contents of the unconscious can walk right through."

I'm not sure how that fits into Socionics though. Augusta seems to have departed in many respects from Jungian psychology and gone down her own road. Which is quite fine, I'm finding it very interesting to study, but I'm having to compartmentalize the things I already know from Jung quite a lot. I don't think very much of Jung's psychological types really applies to Socionics, in the same way that MBTI function dynamics doesn't really carry over that well either (except for the four basic dichotomies E-I, N-S, T-F, J-P, which seem pretty much the same in both systems.)

I'm not sure, but does anyone know if Augusta clarifies which of the function blocks are more conscious and which are less conscious? I'm assuming the "ego block" is of course the most conscious, but what about the others? Also, does she discuss or mention the idea of differentiating a function anywhere? I'm having trouble finding that concept mentioned anywhere.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

Abraxas said:


> That's correct. The inferior would always be the opposite of the dominant function band have an opposite attitude. So for instance, a dominant introverted thinker would have an inferior extraverted feeling. Jung thought that the relationship between the dominant and the inferior was such that the inferior was the most unconscious and thus the least differentiated function, and therefore it was (as Marie-Louise Von Franz puts it), "like an open door without a lock through which all the contents of the unconscious can walk right through."
> 
> I'm not sure how that fits into Socionics though. Augusta seems to have departed in many respects from Jungian psychology and gone down her own road. Which is quite fine, I'm finding it very interesting to study, but I'm having to compartmentalize the things I already know from Jung quite a lot. I don't think very much of Jung's psychological types really applies to Socionics, in the same way that MBTI function dynamics doesn't really carry over that well either (except for the four basic dichotomies E-I, N-S, T-F, J-P, which seem pretty much the same in both systems.)
> 
> I'm not sure, but does anyone know if Augusta clarifies which of the function blocks are more conscious and which are less conscious? I'm assuming the "ego block" is of course the most conscious, but what about the others? Also, does she discuss or mention the idea of differentiating a function anywhere? I'm having trouble finding that concept mentioned anywhere.


Idk, I think Jung's ideas fit pretty well with Socionics, but I'm no expert on Jung. Some of the conceptual differences might come from the fact that Socionics thinks in terms of information elements and information processing rather than cognitive functions. For example, Si can be your role function but it does not mean you actually produce any information related to the Si aspect, instead you merely receive it, when directed at you, and manifest reactions. On the other hand, you produce information from your ego.

I was just reading this Augusta model of the information metabolism - Wikisocion and I found this paragraph relevant:


> According to information theory, a system only receives the information that it is attuned to, i.e. the only signals which it picks up are those which it can issue itself. The signals which the organism is more consciously aware of will likewise be more consciously produced. For example, a man who does not notice his own tone when speaking, does not pay attention to the tone of other people speaking.


So it seems there's a clear correlation between consciousness and informational compatibility (I just made this term up lol).


----------



## Entropic

Augusta thinks the ego block is conscious, along with the superego one though I question the consciousness of the superego block, personally.


----------



## Figure

Referee enters, to say that everyone here is reading WAY too much into internet language and associating it with IE's/functions. 

That's pretty poor form. You really need to get to know people personally, or at least observe them in many samples to have enough information to make that kind of conclusion.


----------



## Kintsugi

Duality means fuck all in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Kintsugi said:


> Duality means fuck all in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Kintsugi

Word Dispenser said:


>


----------



## Dalton

So I'm probably just another ILI. Laaaaaaaaaaame.


----------



## Golden Rose

Dalton said:


> So I'm probably just another ILI. Laaaaaaaaaaame.


Laaaaaame but not as lame as being another IEI snowflake  *sneaks back into Beta Quadra*


----------



## Entropic

Dalton said:


> So I'm probably just another ILI. Laaaaaaaaaaame.


ILI how so?


----------



## Dalton

Entropic said:


> ILI how so?


I've been going through Reinin dichotomies. Most point to ILI over LIE, and the ones that don't are in the middle.

I've been telling people that the 3rd function is kind of ignored and under-appreciated, while the 4th is more noticed due to the problems it causes in everyday life. However, I think I had it backwards.

I've ignored my Ni a lot, because I want be logical and objective, but I think this is a matter of type 1 motivation and lack of trust in myself, rather than having more Te than Ni.

I don't fit ENTJ stereotypes. Lulz.

I spend a lot of time thinking about personality theory while I should be doing schoolwork. I do this in a much more intuitive way, trying to rearrange the enneagram symbol (lines of integration, etc), as well as plotting Socionics types on a double-sided circle (arranging by shared functions, i.e. TeSi>TeNi>NiTe). I'm starting to think it's more accurate to say Ni is my base and Te my creative.

My relationship with Fi is much more yielding than average LIEs. I actually care to not hurt others' feelings. I'm passive, like to mull over things, and I don't like to jump into situations in the way that more proficient Se-users would.

___________________

Additionally: I sacrificed my bodily health (i.e. I have permanent knee damage) because of Ni-Fi convictions. "If I do God's will, He'll take care of me." {LOL NOPE.} I wasn't very aware of my increasing physical damage until it was too late. I'm much more interested in analyzing, understanding, and even expressing my Fi in comparison to Se.


----------



## Gentleman

Why is Se's HA "to be wealthy"?

http://www.socionics.com/articles/hiddena.htm

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/167-The-Hidden-Agenda-and-Point-of-Least-Resistance


----------



## Dalton

Stampede said:


> Why is Se's HA "to be wealthy"?
> 
> Type and the hidden agenda
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - The Hidden Agenda and Point of Least Resistance


I assume because it's associated with power (social; physical; and most importantly the power to indulge without being oppressed by the _lack_ of money, which is generally a huge issue for Se types.)


----------



## MNiS

Dalton said:


> I assume because it's associated with power (social; physical; and most importantly the power to indulge without being oppressed by the _lack_ of money, which is generally a huge issue for Se types.)


Se-HA can mean wealthy as in being intellectually or spiritually wealthy as well. The desire to be wealthy for Se-HA is to simply have abundance in whatever it is that one cares for. For the Gamma ILI that usually means money or some form of currency (favors, goodwill, etc) while the Beta IEI may be more than content to have access to a wealth of political or social favor and have their Se-HA fulfilled.


----------



## Abraxas

Stampede said:


> Why is Se's HA "to be wealthy"?
> 
> Type and the hidden agenda
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - The Hidden Agenda and Point of Least Resistance



Because you can make any kind of shit up you want as long as people actually fit into the boxes you make for them.

It doesn't even have to make sense subjectively. It can just be educated guesswork derived from observations of people.

I mean, basically if the shoe fits, then it fits.

Se's HA be like it do because it got gat.


----------



## kitsu

MNiS said:


> Se-HA can mean wealthy as in being intellectually or spiritually wealthy as well. The desire to be wealthy for Se-HA is to simply have abundance in whatever it is that one cares for. For the Gamma ILI that usually means money or some form of currency (favors, goodwill, etc) while the Beta IEI may be more than content to have access to a wealth of political or social favor and have their Se-HA fulfilled.


HA = mobilizing. LIE and EIE have Se HA.


----------



## MNiS

Merry blues said:


> HA = mobilizing. LIE and EIE have Se HA.


Ah, thanks for the correction, I do still sometimes mix up the DS and HA as well as the ignoring and demonstrative since people don't discuss the Id and super-ID as often. 

You can apply what I wrote to the LIE and EIE instead, actually it would apply to the xIE even moreso than to the IxI, so good.


----------



## Vermillion

I hate arguing with T types... :crying: I feel like everything I say gives them an advantage over me. All the time.


----------



## Figure

Amaterasu said:


> I hate arguing with T types... :crying: I feel like everything I say gives them an advantage over me. All the time.



And you said you always win.....


----------



## Bash

Amaterasu said:


> I hate arguing with T types... :crying: I feel like everything I say gives them an advantage over me. All the time.


It's ok. Let's throw a party instead. How about an indoors water slide?


----------



## Vermillion

Figure said:


> And you said you always win.....


Fuck you for remembering that :angry: I did win our first argument, just saying.



Bash said:


> It's ok. Let's throw a party instead. How about an indoors water slide?



Isn't that shit expensive or something?


----------



## Entropic

Amaterasu said:


> I hate arguing with T types... :crying: I feel like everything I say gives them an advantage over me. All the time.


Wut?


----------



## Vermillion

Entropic said:


> Wut?


Could ask you the same.


----------



## Figure

Amaterasu said:


> Fuck you for remembering that :angry: I did win our first argument, just saying.


The only thing you "won" was a laugh from me, which I'll give you, is an accomplishment given I'm a tough audience. 

Otherwise, all I had to do was tell you you contradicted yourself, you believed me, admitted defeat, and got frustrated. Oh, and threatened to murder me, which hurt....real bad. 

Keep trying XD


----------



## Vermillion

Figure said:


> The only thing you "won" was a laugh from me, which I'll give you, is an accomplishment given I'm a tough audience.
> 
> Otherwise, all I had to do was tell you you contradicted yourself, you believed me, admitted defeat, and got frustrated. Oh, and threatened to murder me, which hurt....real bad.
> 
> Keep trying XD


...I didn't even remember all that... x_x

But hey, winning is winning.


----------



## Elyasis

Amaterasu said:


> ...I didn't even remember all that... x_x
> 
> But hey, winning is winning.


It pays off in the long run to remember everything you can about people. You never know when you'll need to use that knowledge to your benefit.

Personal experience.


----------



## The Exception

Gammas, what is it about your obsession with darkness and all things dark? :laughing: Why do lighthearted things turn you off so much?
Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## kitsu

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> Gammas, what is it about your obsession with darkness and all things dark? :laughing: Why do lighthearted things turn you off so much?
> Inquiring minds want to know.


Alphas, what is it about your obsession with the positive and all things happy and fluffy? Why this avoidance of the darkness of the human soul?

Delta out :ninja:


----------



## The Exception

Merry blues said:


> Alphas, what is it about your obsession with the positive and all things happy and fluffy? Why this avoidance of the darkness of the human soul?
> 
> Delta out :ninja:


Okay, fair enough. Life is too short to dwell on the negative. Would life really be worth living if you were never happy about anything? That said, I do experience a dark side now and then and sometimes darkness can be well, intriguing but it's generally not where I prefer to spend most of my time.


----------



## kitsu

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> Okay, fair enough. Life is too short to dwell on the negative. Would life really be worth living if you were never happy about anything? That said, I do experience a dark side now and then and sometimes darkness can be well, intriguing but it's generally not where I prefer to spend most of my time.


Well that I get, but in my personal experience it's difficult to address unpleasant, painful, or deeply personal topics with Alphas, they often deflect to something lighter. Do you relate?

That being said I'd also like an answer to your question to Gammas, I don't quite understand the opposite tendency either.


----------



## The Exception

Amaterasu said:


> B) is definitely worse. Literally EVERYTHING in B) is vile and stupid. I don't see much wrong with A) except "shiny happy people". But honestly, even some shiny happy people are loads of fun to be around. It depends on what sort of happy.


You are so obviously my conflictor because B is my playground. Basically I'm trying to ask gammas in a roundabout way which is worse: A) alpha SF or B) alpha NT


----------



## Vermillion

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> You are so obviously my conflictor because B is my playground. Basically I'm trying to ask gammas in a roundabout way which is worse: A) alpha SF or B) alpha NT


Yes, I figured that was your intention, though kpop and Hello Kitty and bright colors don't necessarily have to be alpha SF preferences.


----------



## Serpent

Just a quick question. What cognitive types would subjects like Math and Computer Science (or Programming) appeal to?

I'm not sure I'm a Gamma (vacillating between that and Beta) but...



> Which is worse:
> A) Bright colors, shiny happy people, Japanese k-pop, Hello Kitty, My Little Pony, the holiday spirit.
> 
> 
> B) Mental masturbation, useless inventions, impracticality, no one correct truth, force fitting everything into a system.


A) Pretty much nonchalant. Despise the holiday spirit. Shiny happy funny can be amusing when they're mocking that archetype. 

B) Dislike. I hate puzzles, riddles can be interesting though. No one correct truth is very annoying. I don't see any point in useless inventions other than to show-off.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Rex Magnus said:


> Just a quick question. What cognitive types would subjects like Math and Computer Science (or Programming) appeal to?
> 
> I'm not sure I'm a Gamma (vacillating between that and Beta) but...
> 
> 
> 
> A) Pretty much nonchalant. Despise the holiday spirit. Shiny happy funny can be amusing when they're mocking that archetype.
> 
> B) Dislike. I hate puzzles, riddles can be interesting though. No one correct truth is very annoying. I don't see any point in useless inventions other than to show-off.





Rex Magnus said:


> Just a quick question. What cognitive types would subjects like Math and Computer Science (or Programming) appeal to?
> 
> I'm not sure I'm a Gamma (vacillating between that and Beta) but...
> 
> 
> 
> A) Pretty much nonchalant. Despise the holiday spirit. Shiny happy funny can be amusing when they're mocking that archetype.
> 
> B) Dislike. I hate puzzles, riddles can be interesting though. No one correct truth is very annoying. I don't see any point in useless inventions other than to show-off.


Cool. I like both of A and B, but more B, although I don't generally make useless inventions.. I dunno, I'm a healthy mix between A and B.

I do love holidays though.


----------



## Elyasis

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> You are so obviously my conflictor because B is my playground. Basically I'm trying to ask gammas in a roundabout way which is worse: A) alpha SF or B) alpha NT


Gamma SF will say B, while Gamma NT will say A. Although both will probably never be fully comfortable with either.


----------



## Word Dispenser

lolol, maybe the whole point of calling it '_Japanese_ k-pop' is because Alpha. :laughing:


----------



## Vermillion

Word Dispenser said:


> lolol, maybe the whole point of calling it '_Japanese_ k-pop' is because Alpha. :laughing:


Huh I'm confused.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Amaterasu said:


> Huh I'm confused.


Entropic pointed out that k-pop and j-pop are two different genres. But, of course Alpha would be aware of the obscure sub-sub-genre 'Japanese k-pop'. :kitteh:


----------



## Vermillion

Word Dispenser said:


> Entropic pointed out that k-pop and j-pop are two different genres. But, of course Alpha would be aware of the obscure sub-sub-genre 'Japanese k-pop'. :kitteh:


Eh, I'm aware of it too, though it's not a wholly accurate classification imo. Assuming you and I are thinking of the same thing?


----------



## Word Dispenser

Amaterasu said:


> Eh, I'm aware of it too, though it's not a wholly accurate classification imo. Assuming you and I are thinking of the same thing?


Well, I meant... Japanese-Korean pop, if that clarifies the joke any. roud:


----------



## Vermillion

Word Dispenser said:


> Well, I meant... Japanese-Korean pop, if that clarifies the joke any. roud:


I know, but are you referring to those Kpop singers who create Japanese versions of their albums for their fans in that country?


----------



## Word Dispenser

Amaterasu said:


> I know, but are you referring to those Kpop singers who create Japanese versions of their albums for their fans in that country?


You're over-thinking it. :kitteh:

And.. I guess I have to explain my joke. Which means it wasn't a very good joke. *pout*

I was more thinking of Japanese singers that sing in K-pop style, rather than J-pop. I'd imagine that the two genres are quite similar, and thus it's kinda nonsensical. :wink:


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> Entropic pointed out that k-pop and j-pop are two different genres. But, of course Alpha would be aware of the obscure sub-sub-genre 'Japanese k-pop'. :kitteh:


Why would alphas be aware of it lol?



Word Dispenser said:


> You're over-thinking it. :kitteh:
> 
> And.. I guess I have to explain my joke. Which means it wasn't a very good joke. *pout*
> 
> I was more thinking of Japanese singers that sing in K-pop style, rather than J-pop. I'd imagine that the two genres are quite similar, and thus it's kinda nonsensical. :wink:


This explanation isn't helping. Sign me up on the confusion train.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Entropic said:


> Why would alphas be aware of it lol?
> 
> 
> 
> This explanation isn't helping. Sign me up on the confusion train.


Well, 

1) There probably isn't such a thing as Japanese singers that sing in K-pop style.

2) If there is, it'd probably be an Alpha who points it out because of its obscurity and kinda tripping everyone else up due to making everyone think about it when there's no need to, making an entire discussion based around the idea of Japanese K-pop and the theoretical implications therein.

3) Kinda like now.

4) Because Alphas like to talk/think about things that are fun, irrelevant, and impractical.


----------



## Entropic

Word Dispenser said:


> Well,
> 
> 1) There probably isn't such a thing as Japanese singers that sing in K-pop style.
> 
> *2) If there is, it'd probably be an Alpha who points it out because of its obscurity and kinda tripping everyone else up due to making everyone think about it when there's no need to, making an entire discussion based around the idea of Japanese K-pop and the theoretical implications therein.*
> 
> 3) Kinda like now.
> 
> 4) Because Alphas like to talk/think about things that are fun, irrelevant, and impractical.


But why would an alpha do 2? Eh wait, I think I'm maaaaaaaaaybe getting it. I was just thinking that if someone points out the factual correctness that Japanese k-pop exists, well, then it does so move on? Are you trying to suggest it has something to do with the idea of the potential of the idea whatever? I think. Opposite quadras, you make no sense.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Entropic said:


> But why would an alpha do 2? Eh wait, I think I'm maaaaaaaaaybe getting it. I was just thinking that if someone points out the factual correctness that Japanese k-pop exists, well, then it does so move on? Are you trying to suggest it has something to do with the idea of the potential of the idea whatever? I think. Opposite quadras, you make no sense.


Sigh. I just thought it was amusing that the Alpha in question made Japanese k-pop an option, and I merely made a light joke about it being on-purpose. Or something.

I don't even know anymore.

Sometimes, when I talk to you Gamz, I needs to hear from an Alpha that I'm actually making any sense. 'Cause sometimes I'm just not. For any quadra. :laughing:


----------



## MNiS

Word Dispenser said:


> I was more thinking of Japanese singers that sing in K-pop style, rather than J-pop.


Or she made a mistake and meant J-pop which is the most likely considering everything else in category A. If she meant K-pop that's sung in Japanese then that's pretty obscure and not really reasonable for anyone to be familiar with or even be aware that exists.

But that's a matter of Ni or Ne valuing.


----------



## MNiS

Also, I guess no one knows what my avatar is from. That's cool. I wouldn't expect many people to know what it is. roud:


----------



## Word Dispenser

MNiS said:


> Also, I guess no one knows what my avatar is from. That's cool. I wouldn't expect many people to know what it is. roud:


Why would anyone even mention it? It's vulgar and crass! :shocked:


----------



## MNiS

Word Dispenser said:


> Why would anyone even mention it? It's vulgar and crass! :shocked:


Hahahah, okay that's funny. It's not vulgar and crass, I think it's quite the opposite actually. roud:

I thought it was tasteful and artfully done. Plus there's a prequel in 2015.


----------



## Vermillion

Bash said:


>


wtf? Who is that? That's just fucking creepy.


----------



## Psithurism

Amaterasu said:


> Try harder


Sorry, that's about as far as I could go without cringing.


----------



## Bash

Amaterasu said:


> wtf? Who is that? That's just fucking creepy.


Exactly. This is artillery Ni to your cavalry Se. No more Wistfulness in this thread.


----------



## Vermillion

Bash said:


> Exactly. This is artillery Ni to your cavalry Se. No more Wistfulness in this thread.


???

He will go to whichever thread he pleases, I don't see your point?


----------



## Bash

Amaterasu said:


> ???
> 
> He will go to whichever thread he pleases, I don't see your point?


It seem to be your idea that he should leave.



Amaterasu said:


> Belated congratulations, ESE  Now leave the gamma thread, stop polluting it.


----------



## Vermillion

Bash said:


> It seem to be your idea that he should leave.


Oooook, but I'm confused what that has to do with me talking about Kent being the best.


----------



## Bash

Amaterasu said:


> Oooook, but I'm confused what that has to do with me talking about Kent being the best.


Nothing, really, just that the Mr Burns "excellent" GIFs are slightly worn out.


----------



## Vermillion

Bash said:


> Nothing, really, just that the Mr Burns "excellent" GIFs are slightly worn out.


Er, ok. I'd advise you avoid the gif you used here as well, it's not very appealing. And I don't know how any of this needed any mention of Wistfulness.


----------



## Bash

Amaterasu said:


> Er, ok. I'd advise you avoid the gif you used here as well, it's not very appealing.


I shall keep that in mind. What do you think I should replace it with?


----------



## TheProphetLaLa

Oooo it looks like I came just in time to SEE someone give a beat down. fun fun.


----------



## Bash

TheProphetLaLa said:


> Oooo it looks like I came just in time to SEE someone give a beat down. fun fun.


I didn't think you ESFP much fancied the bystander role. Help youself to a ringside corner.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa

Bash said:


> I didn't think you ESFP much fancied the bystander role. Help youself to a ringside corner.


Lol. I think I'll sit this one out. I've been in my share of per c "fights". No need to get hasty.


----------



## Bash

TheProphetLaLa said:


> Lol. I think I'll sit this one out. I've been in my share of per c "fights". No need to get hasty.


What were those about?


----------



## Vermillion

Bash said:


> I shall keep that in mind. What do you think I should replace it with?


I dunno man, maybe something that didn't have the weird stalker vibe?


----------



## Bash

Amaterasu said:


> I dunno man, maybe something that didn't have the weird stalker vibe?


----------



## Vermillion

Bash said:


> View attachment 243874


...
Not working, for obvious reasons.


----------



## Entropic

Bash said:


> Nothing, really, just that the Mr Burns "excellent" GIFs are slightly worn out.


----------



## Bash

Entropic said:


>


GIF was intentionally creepy. Nothing more to it, really.


----------



## Bash

Amaterasu said:


> ...
> Not working, for obvious reasons.


I see.


----------



## Bash

Since it was my GIF that killed the thread, I'll revive it with some Gamma music.


----------



## MNiS

Word Dispenser said:


> I think the likelihood of you being Gamma is low based on observation, but congratulations regardless, as I respect how you identify yourself, and I've been wrong more than right. roud:


I'm open to the possibility of being wrong yet again so what would you type me as?


----------



## Bash

MNiS said:


> I'm open to the possibility of being wrong yet again so what would you type me as?


What was the main basis for ILI?


----------



## MNiS

Bash said:


> What was the main basis for ILI?


I'm pretty certain I'm Gamma and it was either ILI or LIE. Back when I was in school I would've said LIE because of my hectic schedule but out of school I think ILI makes more sense.

I considered ESI, but considering my sister is an ESI and I'm not really anything like her, I ruled out that possibility.


----------



## Bash

MNiS said:


> I'm pretty certain I'm Gamma and it was either ILI or LIE. Back when I was in school I would've said LIE because of my hectic schedule but out of school I think ILI makes more sense.
> 
> I considered ESI, but considering my sister is an ESI and I'm not really anything like her, I ruled out that possibility.


Thank you. How did you rule out the other three quadras?


----------



## TheProphetLaLa

Bash said:


> Thank you. How did you rule out the other three quadras?


Hey stash, jw whats your type man? Or at the very least which types are you considering? Are you keeping everything _unknown_ so you can frolic through the perc forums unhindered and unchallenged? I've considered this myself more than once...


----------



## MNiS

Bash said:


> Thank you. How did you rule out the other three quadras?


First through reading and reflection. If you read the quadra descriptions and are honest with yourself, which quadra you most identify with should become pretty clear.

After through study, I then verified it through a process of elimination: I already have a lot of experience with Betas and already know I'm not one, so that one was easy. I used to eat in the LA area that have a lot of Alphas (like Venice and Abbot Kinney specifically) and I can tell you immediately tell that, while I like the food where ever there're a lot of Alphas, I'm not one.  Delta... well, I just know I'm not one. I'm not nearly kind enough and I think Deltas are kind of too passive and accepting of things that they shouldn't be.

So that only leaves Gamma which I identify well with: 

- I heavily prefer being productive over work then relaxation/fun.

- I'm only interested in profitable (worthwhile) ventures. Contrast with Alphas who might do it just to find out, or Betas who might do something just for the fun of it or if they see some political benefit and Deltas who might do something simply because they've determined that they should.

- I'm pretty much always anticipating what's going to happen with regards to the news and my own life.

- The concept of money doesn't bother me.

- I'm more individualistic than communal.

- There's a lot more, but hopefully I've made my point by now.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora

Entropic said:


>


You are mean lol


----------



## Word Dispenser

MNiS said:


> I'm open to the possibility of being wrong yet again so what would you type me as?


IEE. roud:


----------



## Bash

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> You are mean lol


Aren't ILIs supposed to be? = )


----------



## Bash

TheProphetLaLa said:


> Hey stash, jw whats your type man? Or at the very least which types are you considering? Are you keeping everything _unknown_ so you can frolic through the perc forums unhindered and unchallenged? I've considered this myself more than once...


If I told you that I intentionally did keep things unknown, I wouldn't be able to lurk around anymore, now whould I? Gunpoint, I'd say ILI or LIE, though, since I like the gamma thread the best.


----------



## Bash

TheProphetLaLa said:


> Hey stash, jw whats your type man? Or at the very least which types are you considering? Are you keeping everything _unknown_ so you can frolic through the perc forums unhindered and unchallenged? I've considered this myself more than once...


Entropic just typed me LIE. No more lurking in other other Quadras' threads.


----------



## Serpent

What bolsters my belief that I'm Fi/Te rather than Ti/Fe is how I identify with Ned Stark in Game Of Thrones when it comes to morality (only disagreeing with him for judging Jaime Lannister, who incidentally happens to be another Fi I relate to). 
This video is a great example (along with the one where he abdicates his position as the Hand). 





I read some comments about how this was a dumb or illogical move and my thought process was basically, "Fuck that. Ned Stark did what was right. Fuck The Mountain and fuck Tywin Lannister. They deserve this. Lick some more boots, Pycelle."

If you know the lore, the original falling out between Ned Stark and Robert Baratheon was basically an Fi vs Fe argument. It makes for an interesting friendship, come to think of it, SLI and SLE.


----------



## Entropic

Rex Magnus said:


> What bolsters my belief that I'm Fi/Te rather than Ti/Fe is how I identify with Ned Stark in Game Of Thrones when it comes to morality (only disagreeing with him for judging Jaime Lannister, who incidentally happens to be another Fi I relate to).
> This video is a great example (along with the one where he abdicates his position as the Hand).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read some comments about how this was a dumb or illogical move and my thought process was basically, "Fuck that. Ned Stark did what was right. Fuck The Mountain and fuck Tywin Lannister. They deserve this. Lick some more boots, Pycelle."
> 
> If you know the lore, the original falling out between Ned Stark and Robert Baratheon was basically an Fi vs Fe argument. It makes for an interesting friendship, come to think of it, SLI and SLE.


Agreed that the disagreement was Fi vs Fe, here.


----------



## Kintsugi

I hate it when people say, "smile...it might never happen!"

Screw you, bitch. I smile on my own terms. 

I seem to be finding it harder and harder to tolerate people. -_-'


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Kintsugi said:


> I hate it when people say, "smile...it might never happen!"
> 
> Screw you, bitch. I smile on my own terms.
> 
> I seem to be finding it harder and harder to tolerate people. -_-'


I've dealt with this shit so many times that I would be rich if I got one dollar for every time that I've heard this. The other grating thing is when people get pissy because I forgot to greet them.


----------



## Bash

Rex Magnus said:


> fuck Tywin Lannister.


; )


----------



## MNiS

Rex Magnus said:


> What bolsters my belief that I'm Fi/Te rather than Ti/Fe is how I identify with Ned Stark in Game Of Thrones when it comes to morality (only disagreeing with him for judging Jaime Lannister, who incidentally happens to be another Fi I relate to).
> This video is a great example (along with the one where he abdicates his position as the Hand).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read some comments about how this was a dumb or illogical move and my thought process was basically, "Fuck that. Ned Stark did what was right. Fuck The Mountain and fuck Tywin Lannister. They deserve this. Lick some more boots, Pycelle."
> 
> If you know the lore, the original falling out between Ned Stark and Robert Baratheon was basically an Fi vs Fe argument. It makes for an interesting friendship, come to think of it, SLI and SLE.


Definitely Fi and Fe clashing. I don't watch Game of Thrones (don't have HBO or even cable for that matter) but acting immediately was obviously the right move. To say otherwise would be the sign of a weak leader and one who is unfit to rule.


----------



## Bash

Merry Christmas, fellow Gammas. Though, I suppose most of you won't celebrate untill tomorrow.


----------



## The Exception

Bash said:


> Merry Christmas, fellow Gammas. Though, I suppose most of you won't celebrate untill tomorrow.


Gammas aren't merry though. That should be *Serious* Christmas for you gammas. Deltas too. :tongue:


----------



## Bash

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> Gammas aren't merry though. That should be *Serious* Christmas for you gammas. Deltas too. :tongue:


There is no Christmas spirit like inferior Fe.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Merry Christmas, Gammas! 

I'm allowed to say it. roud:


----------



## tangosthenes

beebope badeepumdeepum dipudi doo


----------



## MNiS

Word Dispenser said:


> Merry Christmas, Gammas!
> 
> I'm allowed to say it. roud:


Merry Christmas to you too! 

The holidays are one of my favorite time of year and one of my life desires is to kiss a gal at Times Square on New Years just after the countdown and hopefully end up on TV in the process. roud:



tangosthenes said:


> beebope badeepumdeepum dipudi doo


R2D2, is that you?  Otherwise, what's that supposed to be?


----------



## tangosthenes

MNiS said:


> Merry Christmas to you too!
> 
> The holidays are one of my favorite time of year and one of my life desires is to kiss a gal at Times Square on New Years just after the countdown and hopefully end up on TV in the process. roud:
> 
> 
> 
> R2D2, is that you?  Otherwise, what's that supposed to be?


things and stuff, in that order, or the other possible orders. Let me give you a taste of some possible combinations:
things, stuff
stuff, things
thuff, stings
stings, thuff
thiff,stungs
stungs,thiff
thinff,stugs
stugs,thinff

There is literally no end to the excrem...excitement this can produce!


----------



## MNiS

tangosthenes said:


> things and stuff, in that order, or the other possible orders. Let me give you a taste of some possible combinations:
> things, stuff
> stuff, things
> thuff, stings
> stings, thuff
> thiff,stungs
> stungs,thiff
> thinff,stugs
> stugs,thinff
> 
> There is literally no end to the excrem...excitement this can produce!


Err, I see. Gotcha.


----------



## Bash

tangosthenes said:


> things and stuff, in that order, or the other possible orders. Let me give you a taste of some possible combinations:
> things, stuff
> stuff, things
> thuff, stings
> stings, thuff
> thiff,stungs
> stungs,thiff
> thinff,stugs
> stugs,thinff
> 
> There is literally no end to the excrem...excitement this can produce!


Ne-user detected.


----------



## tangosthenes

MNiS said:


> Err, I see. Gotcha.


consider yourself enlightened


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Hi, i dont like being gamma esi, how do i switch to sei ?

Thanx in advance 

:kitteh:


----------



## MNiS

tangosthenes said:


> consider yourself enlightened


You remind me of a lot of SLEs I know and have known. I think the jig is up for you. 



crashbandicoot said:


> Hi, i dont like being gamma esi, how do i switch to sei ?
> 
> Thanx in advance
> 
> :kitteh:


You switch quadras and hang out with other Alphas. It's not difficult at all, if you don't end up killing yourself or become suicidal that is.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

MNiS said:


> You switch quadras and hang out with other Alphas. It's not difficult at all, if you don't end up killing yourself or become suicidal that is.



Lol wut ? I like alphas 

They arent responding my attempts at communucating with them though. See alpha hangout thread :crying:


----------



## MNiS

crashbandicoot said:


> Lol wut ? I like alphas
> 
> They arent responding my attempts at communucating with them though. See alpha hangout thread :crying:


I like Alphas too. Just not all the time. If you lived among Alphas as a Gamma then you're going to feel isolated unless there are other Gammas around. Presuming that you are Gamma of course.

I used to live at a place that was pretty much Alpha-Betaville and I was pretty miserable, truth be told. Not that I hated anyone, but I just felt alone. It's like that for anyone living in an area that is made up of people predominantly of their opposite quadra.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

I usually hate betas, hmm, maybe i am a delta. I dont like see's either, they are weird and punkish.

Come to think of i kinda hate any type out there, so.


----------



## MNiS

@_crashbandicoot_ - I'd suggest you consider LSE in addition to ESI then.

It really depends on what you consider to be "out there". That can indicate either Ni or Ne PoLR. If by "out there" you mean you hate people who are always spaced out and can't seem to pay much attention or hold a long train of thought then that's Ne-PoLR. If by "out there" you mean you hate people who hold esoteric views or may like things that aren't standard or would otherwise would not be considered normal people (or would even be considered strange) then that'd be Ni-PoLR.

You may also want to consider LSI or ESE but I'm kind of doubting Fe-valuing for you.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Ha, i meant i manage to find sth about all types/people to hate and i like doing that, so both ni and ne polr.
Must be type 1 in me.

I sometimes like xsfjs and maybe entps for a limited time.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa

crashbandicoot said:


> Ha, i meant i manage to find sth about all types/people to hate and i like doing that, so both ni and ne polr.
> Must be type 1 in me.
> 
> I sometimes like xsfjs and maybe entps for a limited time.


Yeah, well we don't like you either Cashbland Cooties!!!!! Take that. :tongue:


----------



## MNiS

crashbandicoot said:


> Ha, i meant i manage to find sth about all types/people to hate and i like doing that, so both ni and ne polr.
> Must be type 1 in me.
> 
> I sometimes like xsfjs and maybe entps for a limited time.


I'd say you're just a weird ESI. Conflictors initially get along better than duals except with conflictors, too close a relationship tends to frustrate and annoy one another while duals continue to improve in relationship.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

TheProphetLaLa said:


> Yeah, well we don't like you either Cashbland Cooties!!!!! Take that. :tongue:


*cries*

Really:crying:

:happy:


@MNiS

Well, good to be back in the gamma squad :crazy:


----------



## TheProphetLaLa

crashbandicoot said:


> *cries*
> 
> Really:crying:
> 
> :happy:


:wink: Merry Christmas Mr. Cooties. Hope Santa gives you some coal.


----------



## MNiS

crashbandicoot said:


> *cries*
> 
> Really:crying:
> 
> :happy:
> 
> 
> @_MNiS_
> 
> Well, good to be back in the gamma squad :crazy:


Wait, who says you can just come back that easily? Your membership will need to be reviewed and re-approved. :wink:

(j/k) Welcome back. :tongue:


----------



## Mr inappropriate

TheProphetLaLa said:


> :wink: Merry Christmas Mr. Cooties. Hope Santa gives you some coal.


U too but i dont celebrate xmax 

Is cooties a good name btw ?


----------



## tangosthenes

MNiS said:


> You remind me of a lot of SLEs I know and have known. I think the jig is up for you.
> 
> 
> 
> You switch quadras and hang out with other Alphas. It's not difficult at all, if you don't end up killing yourself or become suicidal that is.


I never could dance...


----------



## TheProphetLaLa

crashbandicoot said:


> U too but i dont celebrate xmax
> 
> Is cooties a good name btw ?


Its whatever you want it to be. ^.^


----------



## MNiS

TheProphetLaLa said:


> Its whatever you want it to be. ^.^


Cooties are crabs! :laughing:


----------



## Word Dispenser

crashbandicoot said:


> Lol wut ? I like alphas
> 
> They arent responding my attempts at communucating with them though. See alpha hangout thread :crying:


Sorry. I saw what you wrote, but wasn't sure what to say. :kitteh: 

If you like Alphas for more than five minutes, how could you be Gamma!? roud:


----------



## kitsu

A Gamma filled with festive cheer


----------



## Kintsugi

Merry blues said:


> A Gamma filled with festive cheer
> 
> View attachment 246114


Cracked me up. XD


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Word Dispenser said:


> Sorry. I saw what you wrote, but wasn't sure what to say. :kitteh:
> 
> If you like Alphas for more than five minutes, how could you be Gamma!? roud:


Hi ! :kitteh:

Maybe, I'm full of love and :kitteh:s

must be the :kitteh:s


----------



## MNiS

Merry blues said:


> A Gamma filled with festive cheer
> 
> View attachment 246114


Aren't you ugly, Merry blues.


----------



## kitsu

MNiS said:


> Aren't you ugly, Merry blues.


Gee thanks?


----------



## Entropic

mnis said:


> aren't you ugly, merry blues.


wtf?


----------



## TheProphetLaLa

Merry blues said:


> A Gamma filled with festive cheer
> 
> View attachment 246114


LMFAOOOO!!!! OMG I love you for this!!! XD


----------



## Bash




----------



## Dalton




----------



## Kintsugi

Video-chatting with my bf.

His body appears to be sliding lower and lower down his chair. He does not seem to be bothered by this.

I watch him with slight bewilderment and amusement.

The conversation continues. 

By now, I can only see half of his face as he has slid so far down the damn chair.

"Dude!" I shout

"You're about to fall off the chair....sit up!" 

"Meh", he says, "the effort required to pull myself up at this point would waste energy and is inefficient. It's much better if I just wait to hit the....ARRRRGGH!"

<thump>

"Floor?" I ask. (He has now completely disappeared from the screen).

:laughing:


----------



## Bash

Kintsugi said:


> Video-chatting with my bf.
> 
> His body appears to be sliding lower and lower down his chair. He does not seem to be bothered by this.
> 
> I watch him with slight bewilderment and amusement.
> 
> The conversation continues.
> 
> By now, I can only see half of his face as he has slid so far down the damn chair.
> 
> "Dude!" I shout
> 
> "You're about to fall off the chair....sit up!"
> 
> "Meh", he says, "the effort required to pull myself up at this point would waste energy and is inefficient. It's much better if I just wait to hit the....ARRRRGGH!"
> 
> <thump>
> 
> "Floor?" I ask. (He has now completely disappeared from the screen).
> 
> :laughing:


Inferior Se?


----------



## Kintsugi

Bash said:


> Inferior Se?


Yep. He's also_ reaaaaally _stubborn about certain things. It takes a whole lot of Se to get his butt into gear at times. 

It's fun though. ^_^


----------



## Bash

Kintsugi said:


> Yep. He's also_ reaaaaally _stubborn about certain things. It takes a whole lot of Se to get his butt into gear at times.
> 
> It's fun though. ^_^


This is why XSFp women are so great.


----------



## Kintsugi

Bash said:


> This is why XSFp women are so great.


And it's appreciated. Being admired and respected for just being yourself is an awesomely empowering experience.


----------



## Bash

Kintsugi said:


> And it's appreciated. Being admired and respected for just being yourself is an awesomely empowering experience.


----------



## Dalton

Kintsugi said:


> His body appears to be sliding lower and lower....
> 
> "It's much better if I just wait to hit the...."
> 
> "Floor?"


----------



## Entropic

Good example of inferior Se in gamma NT:


----------



## Kintsugi

Entropic said:


> Good example of inferior Se in gamma NT:


Nah, that's just a crazy vampire dude fighting with someone.


----------



## Entropic

Kintsugi said:


> Nah, that's just a crazy vampire dude fighting with someone.


You were missing the point. I was alluding to this: 


> Here, the credo of extraverted sensation—‘be spontaneous’—is exaggerated by the barbarous quality of the inferior function, which always remains primitive in us. In the dominant position, extraverted sensation is fluent and persuasive;* if undeveloped, however, as in the inferior position, it can be brutish and bullying*.


Source: Shadow Boxing with Fight Club


----------



## Kintsugi

Entropic said:


> You were missing the point. I was alluding to this:
> 
> 
> Source: Shadow Boxing with Fight Club


I've not noticed that in my bf. He's far from "brutish and bullying." That just sounds like someone who is emotionally unhealthy. 

Anyway, you kinda missed my point too. I was sorta being sarcastic/making a joke.


----------



## Dalton

Kintsugi said:


> I've not noticed that in my bf. He's far from "brutish and bullying." That just sounds like someone who is emotionally unhealthy.
> 
> Anyway, you kinda missed my point too. I was sorta being sarcastic/making a joke.


Lol maybe you haven't seen it in your BF but I'm sure you've seen it in me.


----------



## Kintsugi

Dalton said:


> Lol maybe you haven't seen it in your BF but I'm sure you've seen it in me.


Brutish and bullying? Nah... 

You seem very self-aware to me. I wouldn't describe you as "emotionally unhealthy." But then, I haven't been put in my place yet. :3 XD

show me the inferior Se! ^_^











EDIT: Just had an idea/thought related to this inferior-Se stuff, or rather, the subjective perceptions of it I'm seeing here. You see, as an observable THING, inferior Se is really quite simple to me, and I wonder if there is confusion/overlap with Enneagram going on here. Actually...I'm quite interested in how the perception of the inferior/dual-seeking is influence by Enneagram. I'm too tired and I'm not in a making-sense frame of mind...so....I'll try and explain it better another time. XD


----------



## Entropic

Kintsugi said:


> I've not noticed that in my bf. He's far from "brutish and bullying." That just sounds like someone who is emotionally unhealthy.
> 
> Anyway, you kinda missed my point too. I was sorta being sarcastic/making a joke.


No, I utterly fail to see how what you suggested could be seen as a joke, and if you haven't seen it in your bf, then he kinda contradicts a majority of the inferior Se descriptions too, like this for example:



> Anticipating the worst can often elicit anger and blame in INTJs and INFJs. “I’m moody and gloomy, with sudden deep anger,” said an INTJ. An INFJ also describes experiencing deep anger: “I am emotionally aroused and am terribly critical of others. I accuse people of never helping me. I become dogmatic and blast people with facts. If no one is around to attack, I write a scathing letter to someone.”Another said,“I internally check off all the events that happened leading up to the ‘conflict’ and then I verbalize this list with a sense that the impeccable logic of it will convince others I am right and I will be vindicated.”





> Chronic grip behavior may lead the individual and others to believe that fierce anger, excessive control of others and the immediate world, and distrust that approaches paranoia are a part of the natural makeup of the INTJ or INFJ, and that the person has always been that way. Since the process of becoming chronically in the grip is often gradual, even people who have known the person in a non-stressed state are likely not to notice what, in retrospect, will be recognized as a radical alteration of personality. The person will appear to be a rather exaggerated, poorly developed, and distorted version of an Extraverted Sensing type.


----------



## Kintsugi

Entropic said:


> No, I utterly fail to see how what you suggested could be seen as a joke, and if you haven't seen it in your bf, then he kinda contradicts a majority of the inferior Se descriptions too, like this for example:


Are you implying that my bf may not be an inferior Se type, someone you've never met or once spoken to? I think I'll trust my own judgement on that one. 

Also, might not have crossed your mind but those descriptions are referring to when Ni-dominants hit extreme unhealthy levels. Not really sure that's the stuff you should be using to justify a type with. *shrugs*


----------



## Dalton

Kintsugi said:


> Brutish and bullying? Nah...
> 
> You seem very self-aware to me. I wouldn't describe you as "emotionally unhealthy." But then, I haven't been put in my place yet. :3 XD
> 
> show me the inferior Se! ^_^
> 
> 
> EDIT: Just had an idea/thought related to this inferior-Se stuff, or rather, the subjective perceptions of it I'm seeing here. You see, as an observable THING, inferior Se is really quite simple to me, and I wonder if there is confusion/overlap with Enneagram going on here. Actually...I'm quite interested in how the perception of the inferior/dual-seeking is influence by Enneagram. I'm too tired and I'm not in a making-sense frame of mind...so....I'll try and explain it better another time. XD


Well you did see a flavor of it in our private conversations recently, in the ways I wanted to "destroy" certain people with my logic.

ILI's Se might lead them to mistype as Enneagram 8.


----------



## Kintsugi

Dalton said:


> Well you did see a flavor of it in our private conversations recently, in the ways I wanted to "destroy" certain people with my logic.
> 
> ILI's Se might lead them to mistype as Enneagram 8.


I do see the confusion with Enneagram 8 and Se. A lot of people comment that they see a lot of "8" in me which I think might have something to do with Se-dominance because I don't believe I am 7w8 or even have an 8-fix. I think 7w6 seems more accurate.

And yes, I also understand your point about the private conversations. And, tbh, it's something I have seen in my bf too, but it manifests differently. Which is why I wondered about the link to Enneagram. For instance, in the clip above I saw elements of both 8, 1, and maybe even 9. I'm not entirely sure if my bf would have related to it (although I haven't asked him), but he does talk about being able to "destroy" people if he needed to, in order to get to the places he needed to be. He talks a lot about his "power" to achieve great things, to become the best in his field...and even to "transcend humanity". He wants to leave his mark on the world, he wants to "wield his power" and manifest his dreams in reality, because most of his self worth and self perception is significantly influenced by personal achievement. Which I kind of thought sounds quite 3ish, and right now I am fairly certain he's 3w4.

I think what's interesting for me right now and what I'd like to explore is if there is a link between Enneagram and personal perceptions of how the inferior/dual-seeking manifests. Because if there is, using a video such as a above as a "good example" of what inferior Se is may be misleading, because of the subjectivity of it.

So, despite my initial sarcasm, I don't think it's entirely irrelevant. 

Also..For some reason this seems relevant. No idea why. XD


----------



## Dalton

I recently realized that I'm able to make people react just how I want. It's not difficult when you understand what _they_ want.

Sadly, my principles only allow me to toy with people for the greater good. Manipulation could be a fun game if that wasn't the case.


----------



## Entropic

Unrelated but fuck yes they finally made the Parasyte anime? That manga is so good. The anime art director really improved the original manga art though, lol. The original art style is really fucking bad.


----------



## Kintsugi

Entropic said:


> Unrelated but fuck yes they finally made the Parasyte anime? That manga is so good. The anime art director really improved the original manga art though, lol. The original art style is really fucking bad.


Agreed. The music is also awesome. They have, so far, done a really good job with it, imo.

The original manga is from the 80s or something.


----------



## MNiS




----------



## Kintsugi

During a conversation with my boyfriend I commented that he was like a penguin (meant in an endearing way; he just seemed particularly cute and cuddly at that moment...and penguins are cute, duh ).

He looks at me blankly; I can hear the cogs turning in his head. He cocks his head to one side like a confused dog and says, in all seriousness;

"I'm not sure I know enough about penguins to confirm the accuracy of this statement."

:laughing:


----------



## Bash

kintsugi said:


> during a conversation with my boyfriend i commented that he was like a penguin (meant in an endearing way; he just seemed particularly cute and cuddly at that moment...and penguins are cute, duh ).
> 
> He looks at me blankly; i can hear the cogs turning in his head. He cocks his head to one side like a confused dog and says, in all seriousness;
> 
> "i'm not sure i know enough about penguins to confirm the accuracy of this statement."
> 
> :laughing:


:d

intj?


----------



## Kintsugi

Bash said:


> :d
> 
> intj?


Yep. It's _that _​obvious.


----------



## Bash

Kintsugi said:


> Yep. It's _that _​obvious.


Abscent-minded INTP would also have fitted, but I don't think that would do it for you.


----------



## Kintsugi

Bash said:


> Abscent-minded INTP would also have fitted, but I don't think that would do it for you.


Nope. Couldn't stomach a Ti-dominant.


----------



## Bash

Kintsugi said:


> Nope. Couldn't stomach a Ti-dominant.


But...what is a Ti-dominant? (silent for ten minutes)


----------



## Ixim

Amaterasu said:


> There are a lot of things I consider acceptable when I'm home alone :3 I can often have animated conversations with myself about how I need to plan my day, or sort out my thoughts, etc. Sometimes it's also nice to tell myself "fucking shut up" so I can stop being the serial overthinker I am lol.


When alone I just find a thing to moralise about, or a thing to "fix" and...

BABBLE!

Who needs company? Yes it is nice, but for limited amount of time, eh :wink:


----------



## Monkey King

hannahdonot said:


> I want to know if this is a gamma thing:
> 
> Do you often find it pretty dumb or annoying when groups of people start to interact continously just for the sake of "humor" or "fun", especially when you don't get their sense of humor or want to talk about something serious?



I tend to do this with my close friends. The serious talk usually gets weaved in between the humor, which can be very 'fun'. I personally can't stand superficial relations unless I have reason to to stay there and play.


----------



## Aiwass

@Monkey King Well, I can be fun at times with my close friends, too. To be honest, they are the only ones who understand my weird sense of humor. But aside from that, I like when things have a _point_, as @Kintsugi said. I become frustrated when a group is supposed to be focused on completing a task but start to joke around instead of doing it quickly, thing that doesn't seem to bother some people.


----------



## Transience

Hello guys! I'm new here. I was recently typed by a friend as an ESI although they're not quite sure. I've just been reading the older posts.
Can I join the club?

[HR][/HR]
Well, I haven't exactly gotten the approval yet, but I'll post this on the hope that you guys won't turn me down. lol



Abraxas said:


> If you want to have an interesting conversation over a campfire, let it be about an upcoming Shadowrun campaign or a Dungeons & Dragons campaign and we spend hours discussing our character concepts, or lost in nostalgia over how awesome my previous sessions were (since I'm always the DM and I always love being told how awesome my campaigns are, of course).


This seems like a really good idea! I should try it sometime. Role-playing around a campfire looks fun too.


----------



## Bash

Dream Eater said:


> Hello guys! I'm new here. I was recently typed by a friend as an ESI although they're not quite sure. I've just been reading the older posts.
> Can I join the club?
> 
> [HR][/HR]
> Well, I haven't exactly gotten the approval yet, but I'll post this on the hope that you guys won't turn me down. lol
> 
> 
> This seems like a really good idea! I should try it sometime. Role-playing around a campfire looks fun too.


Of course! The more ESIs, the merrier.


----------



## Bash

Ixim said:


> Do you really want to see a passionate outburst directed at random officials in power?
> 
> edit:while we're at it, I see you enjoyed my lil outburst towards mbti Se. Did you now?


I would, yes. It is inspiring.


----------



## Ixim

Bash said:


> I would, yes. It is inspiring.


I am not certain of ESI anymore, but lead Fi stays so it should keep you inspired anyhow.

Sometimes I just feel like having talks that someone like Martin Luther jr or Ben Sisko would have. There is so much fundamentally wrong with both people and, hence, the world that...ERGH! If only people gave a fraction of a second more attention to other people. If only they understood and considered others. Not so selfish. THAT is MY DREAM! A dream of more civilised, of more optimistic age where you can actually talk without the fear of consenquences. A dream where you go to work happy and return happy and where younglings actually look forward to their future not with hesitation/trepidation, but with optimism and excitement. An age where banks are only businesses, NOT masters of whole world. Can such a dream come true? Or is it merely a musing of a wishful young fool? I sincerely hope that the answer to latter is a resounding NO and to former a resounding YES.

...whatever. So sick of capitalism.

Did you need anything else? :happy:


----------



## Ekstasis

Aiwass said:


> I want to know if this is a gamma thing:
> 
> Do you often find it pretty dumb or annoying when groups of people start to interact continously just for the sake of "humor" or "fun", especially when you don't get their sense of humor or want to talk about something serious?


I agree with this. For example, we were just talking about a serious topic that could be practical in real life. But they want to change the topic, because I guess to them it's uninteresting? So they say "Why are you so serious? Let's just have some fun." Then I go "...because we were just talking about something that could actually have a point?" But I digress. Within the group of the friends I have, it's almost impossible to have a conversation which has a point.


----------



## Monkey King

Aiwass said:


> @_Monkey King_ Well, I can be fun at times with my close friends, too. To be honest, they are the only ones who understand my weird sense of humor. But aside from that, I like when things have a _point_, as @_Kintsugi_ said. I become frustrated when a group is supposed to be focused on completing a task but start to joke around instead of doing it quickly, thing that doesn't seem to bother some people.



Well I wouldn't want to be in a meeting with a bunch of incompetents or lazy nuts. I go on a lot of meetings and unfortunately 40% of those meetings I feel were with a bunch of people talking about fluff. I hate it when you're high enough on the chain where you get a seat to these meetings but too low to make the calls/cancel. I cannoooot wait for this contract to be over. 

The way I see it, you got an agenda, you got a reason for meeting, if that reason is not completed, I will feel like I've wasted an hour or two of my day. Sometimes it's easier to get things done when there are less people on the table. And there's always that person that has to ask every question about something. It's like can you please just shoot this person an email to clarify the details instead of taking up 20 minutes of a 1 hour meeting with 5 items on the agenda. It's pretty aggravating.


----------



## Monkey King

Ixim said:


> I am not certain of ESI anymore, but lead Fi stays so it should keep you inspired anyhow.
> 
> Sometimes I just feel like having talks that someone like Martin Luther jr or Ben Sisko would have. There is so much fundamentally wrong with both people and, hence, the world that...ERGH! If only people gave a fraction of a second more attention to other people. If only they understood and considered others. Not so selfish. THAT is MY DREAM! A dream of more civilised, of more optimistic age where you can actually talk without the fear of consenquences. A dream where you go to work happy and return happy and where younglings actually look forward to their future not with hesitation/trepidation, but with optimism and excitement. An age where banks are only businesses, NOT masters of whole world. Can such a dream come true? Or is it merely a musing of a wishful young fool? I sincerely hope that the answer to latter is a resounding NO and to former a resounding YES.
> 
> ...whatever. So sick of capitalism.
> 
> Did you need anything else? :happy:



I dream of a world where people talk less and do more. Fear, consequences, and pain are all precursors to inspire and motivate. The biggest movements have all been because of the darkness in humanity.


----------



## Sixty Nein

I honestly enjoy it whenever people faff around and whatnot. However if there is a goal that is worth considering, everything should be focused and on-the-point or you should just leave and not bother with it. I honestly kind of hate playing DnD games with a group of folks that I hang out with. They just meander all the fucking time, and always have to crack stupid jokes.

At least the DM said that I played the best character, and I was acting like a chaotic stupid jackass because I was playing as the alienist prestige class. (Well not in a very silly way, more like creepy.)

It should be noted that I'm a pretty bad role-player and roll player too.

For an ILI, I see myself as being quite amiable. Pessimistic yeah, but I laugh the hardest in most skype groups that I'm in sometimes. If I'm comfortable.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

edit: wrong thread


----------



## Kintsugi

I feel kinda out-of-place on PerC. It feels like it's overrun by loads of NF types (particularly Delta NF), some NTs (mainly Alpha), and basically, next-to-no ESxPs. 

There is also a distinct lack of Gamma NTs. I feel like Gamma NTs eventually reach a point with typology were they are like "wtf, screw this BS," because of all the mental masturbation that goes on and a seeming lack of focus on application. Or it just becomes a hobby. My bf gave it up ages a go, it served it's purpose, he could not go much further with it (because of a lack of "data"), and then, he moved on. 

Socionics seemed most promising to me in comparison to all the other typology systems, but there is just so much needless fluff. We should just lock up the Alpha NTs to stop them getting their grubby paws all over Model A.  

And don't get me started on Enneagram.... man, that shit hurts my head. It's just so....subjective. At this point, I'm convinced that it's something that should only be used on oneself, as an introspective tool, and not applied on others. 

It also kinda annoys me how some intuitive types (particularly Ne-egos, NFs) accuse me of being too "concrete" and that I take things too literally. Well, duh. I'm an ESFP, what the fuck do you expect. :dry:


----------



## Word Dispenser

Kintsugi said:


> I feel kinda out-of-place on PerC. It feels like it's overrun by loads of NF types (particularly Delta NF), some NTs (mainly Alpha), and basically, next-to-no ESxPs.
> 
> There is also a distinct lack of Gamma NTs. I feel like Gamma NTs eventually reach a point with typology were they are like "wtf, screw this BS," because of all the mental masturbation that goes on and a seeming lack of focus on application. Or it just becomes a hobby. My bf gave it up ages a go, it served it's purpose, he could not go much further with it (because of a lack of "data"), and then, he moved on.
> 
> Socionics seemed most promising to me in comparison to all the other typology systems, but there is just so much needless fluff. We should just lock up the Alpha NTs to stop them getting their grubby paws all over Model A.
> 
> And don't get me started on Enneagram.... man, that shit hurts my head. It's just so....subjective. At this point, I'm convinced that it's something that should only be used on oneself, as an introspective tool, and not applied on others.
> 
> It also kinda annoys me how some intuitive types (particularly Ne-egos, NFs) accuse me of being too "concrete" and that I take things too literally. Well, duh. I'm an ESFP, what the fuck do you expect. :dry:


Actually, if the Gamma hangout thread is any indication, this place is overrun with Gamma. The forum itself as well (If you give the people who type themselves the benefit of the doubt, which I don't, haha)

As for being too concrete-- I can be too concrete and literal as well. Don't be a typist against yourself, lol. You're probably very capable of abstraction, you just do it in a different way. Just like my literalism is done in a different way-- Ti, I suspect. I nitpick what people tell me, word-for-word, as being exactly what they might mean, sometimes.


----------



## Kintsugi

Word Dispenser said:


> Actually, if the Gamma hangout thread is any indication, this place is overrun with Gamma. The forum itself as well (If you give the people who type themselves the benefit of the doubt, which I don't, haha)
> 
> As for being too concrete-- I can be too concrete and literal as well. Don't be a typist against yourself, lol. You're probably very capable of abstraction, you just do it in a different way. Just like my literalism is done in a different way-- Ti, I suspect. I nitpick what people tell me, word-for-word, as being exactly what they might mean, sometimes.


It is my opinion there are _many _mistypes about the place. I don't think typology is something that would naturally appeal to many Gammas; it's too wishy-washy and not objective enough. Gamma types are interested in discussing ideas that can be applied to reality, and, without a way to objectively test for things like cognitive functions, there is very little/if any concrete and reliable data that can be analysed - which is a _significant _issue.

I find people objecting to my thought process all the time on this forum, which further goes to support the idea that there aren't many people about who value the same functions as I do. I'm not typist against myself, I like being concrete; it's my strength. It's other people who seem to get frustrated/take offence to it.


----------



## Ixim

Kintsugi said:


> I feel kinda out-of-place on PerC. It feels like it's overrun by loads of NF types (particularly Delta NF), some NTs (mainly Alpha), and basically, next-to-no ESxPs.
> 
> There is also a distinct lack of Gamma NTs. I feel like Gamma NTs eventually reach a point with typology were they are like "wtf, screw this BS," because of all the mental masturbation that goes on and a seeming lack of focus on application. Or it just becomes a hobby. My bf gave it up ages a go, it served it's purpose, he could not go much further with it (because of a lack of "data"), and then, he moved on.
> 
> Socionics seemed most promising to me in comparison to all the other typology systems, but there is just so much needless fluff. We should just lock up the Alpha NTs to stop them getting their grubby paws all over Model A.
> 
> And don't get me started on Enneagram.... man, that shit hurts my head. It's just so....subjective. At this point, I'm convinced that it's something that should only be used on oneself, as an introspective tool, and not applied on others.
> 
> It also kinda annoys me how some intuitive types (particularly Ne-egos, NFs) accuse me of being too "concrete" and that I take things too literally. Well, duh. I'm an ESFP, what the fuck do you expect. :dry:


Enneagram is a DEEPLY personal tool(it was firstly used by a sect basically then by a jesuit{?} monk...what do you think it'd be with such a history but an introspection tool?), just the same as natal astrology is. Way more abstract and undefined as well, but it can give some insights. Yes it can.

You shouldn't make assumptions based on ennea just as you shouldn't on astro. Sun sign astro? meh brain disease material. First you need to observe the facts(houses, signs, planets, aspects etc) then you need to interpret it. But it's on client to client basis. See? Personal. The same as ennea.

but mental master too op. Narf pl0x!

If it helps you, I dislike vague hogwash as well. Jumps from one random subject to another, factless/surreal thinking etc. You are not alone.


----------



## Aiwass

Kintsugi said:


> I find people objecting to my thought process all the time on this forum, which further goes to support the idea that there aren't many people about who value the same functions as I do. I'm not typist against myself, I like being concrete; it's my strength. It's other people who seem to get frustrated/take offence to it.


Man I really miss the presence of extroverted sensors on this forum. I know typology tends to attract intuitives, but it just doesn't seem reasonable to me that more than 30% of the population -- at least in theory -- is made of ESxx and they are less than 5% here on PerC.

At times it seems like we only get an one-sided, iNtuitive perspective of stuff here. There were many times on my life when sensors helped me by making me focus on the imediate, concrete problem and I just don't see this practicality here.


----------



## Dalton

Kintsugi said:


> It is my opinion there are many mistypes about the place.


Example: Self-typed "Gammas" who claim evidence while neglectfully failing to provide it.
Example: Self-typed "Gammas" who can talk out their ass for ages when they ought to summarize their idea in a single sentence.
Example: Self-typed "ILIs" who call people stupid just for asking _relevant_ questions.
Example: Anybody who has to use subtype, DCNH, or any other sketchy peripheral theory in order to explain their uniqueness.

:frustrating:


----------



## Kintsugi

Aiwass said:


> At times it seems like we only get an one-sided, iNtuitive perspective of stuff here. There were many times on my life when sensors helped me by making me focus on the imediate, concrete problem and I just don't see this practicality here.


_*AGREED!

*_Not to blow my own trumpet or anything but this forum would improve significantly if there were more sensors about...particularly Se-dominants.  




Dalton said:


> Example: Self-typed "Gammas" who claim evidence while neglectfully failing to provide it.
> Example: Self-typed "Gammas" who can talk out their ass for ages when they ought to summarize their idea in a single sentence.
> Example: Self-typed "ILIs" who call people stupid just for asking _relevant_ questions.
> Example: Anybody who has to use subtype, DCNH, or any other sketchy peripheral theory in order to explain their uniqueness.
> 
> :frustrating:


:laughing::laughing::laughing:

WORD.


----------



## Kintsugi

How do you stop a crazy SEE in their tracks?

_Impossible!
_
ILIs, can you handle that shit? T____T


----------



## Bash

Kintsugi said:


> It's alright when you're the only one who gets away with it though.


You do realize that your next "I miss you" will be responded with "I am hungry", though.


----------



## Sixty Nein

Kintsugi said:


> Having a discussion with my bf about "incompetence". He has a LOT to say on this subject, unsurprisingly.


Not to diss him or anything (I hardly know him outside of this forum) but when doesn't he have anything to say?

Not that it's a bad thing. IMO. I honestly like chattier people who are able to strike a conversation about a lot of stuff.


----------



## Kintsugi

Bash said:


> You do realize that your next "I miss you" will be responded with "I am hungry", though.


He's welcome to eat me anytime.  



Twrankt said:


> Not to diss him or anything (I hardly know him outside of this forum) but when doesn't he have anything to say?
> 
> Not that it's a bad thing. IMO. I honestly like chattier people who are able to strike a conversation about a lot of stuff.


Er...you don't know him at all, you've never spoken to him. He's not active on the forum. :laughing:

Also...I don't get your comment? If you are referring to why I post things on this thread about our conversations its because this is the GAMMA HANGOUT thread and I like posting amusing snippets of conversation between an ILI and SEE. *shrugs*


----------



## Sixty Nein

Kintsugi said:


> Also...I don't get your comment? If you are referring to why I post things on this thread about our conversations its because this is the GAMMA HANGOUT thread and I like posting amusing snippets of conversation between an ILI and SEE. *shrugs*


Damnit, I keep making a bunch of social faux pas all the god damn time for the last few weeks. It's so annoying. But no I just got the impression the he just had a lot of stuff on his mind and whatnot? Eh. I honestly don't know where I'm going with this. I just spout some shit without thinking, my weakness really.

My life in a nutshell. Get drawn to something, get stung by it because I don't see the "get the fuck away from me", or "the fuck are you going on about?" signals.


----------



## Bash

Kintsugi said:


> He's welcome to eat me anytime.


: D Should have seen that coming (that's what she said).


----------



## Kintsugi

Twrankt said:


> Damnit, I keep making a bunch of social faux pas all the god damn time for the last few weeks. It's so annoying. But no I just got the impression the he just had a lot of stuff on his mind and whatnot? Eh. I honestly don't know where I'm going with this. I just spout some shit without thinking, my weakness really.
> 
> My life in a nutshell. Get drawn to something, get stung by it because I don't see the "get the fuck away from me", or "the fuck are you going on about?" signals.


It's cool, no one got stung here. It's all gravy. ^_^

Also, I know you started an 80q thread recently; I don't really respond much to those because I dislike attempting to type people that way. Anyway, it might mean nothing but in my experience Ne-egos often read lot's of random meanings into my actions/words (a bit like what happened here, unless I completely misunderstood). I'm actually just a straightforward kinda person, really. I get the feeling that I disappoint them because of this. 

Just a random thought, you can take it or leave it.


----------



## Alomoes

Logically, one is not. Very similar though. Twrank is my pick for ILI. We are social faux pas. 

If I am true, then what he said is probably wrong.


----------



## Max

So. Can we like use Gamma Ray radiation to get other Quadras to submit to us? 

Sent from My Pocket Using Iso-Talk Mark II


----------



## Dalton

Alomoes said:


> Logically, one is not. Very similar though. Twrank is my pick for ILI. We are social faux pas.
> 
> If I am true, then what he said is probably wrong.
> 
> Idea is that INTJ is so good at reading and manipulating that they do it unconsciously. That is what happened here. People who see this and don't like it will be our biggest threats.












Dafuq r u even talking about? It looks like you're responding to somebody or something, but I have no clue who or what.

I saw your post and didn't like it. Does that make me a "threat"? :laughing:


----------



## Alomoes

Dalton said:


> Dafuq r u even talking about? It looks like you're responding to somebody or something, but I have no clue who or what.
> 
> I saw your post and didn't like it. Does that make me a "threat"? :laughing:


Nope. It makes you my conflictor. Conflictors destroy. Logically, you are destroying. Logically, I am destroying. Unless I am your supervisor. Either way. Same thing. If I'm your supervisor, I destroy you. If I'm your conflictor, we destroy each other. If I am your supervisor, then I am a threat you cannot deal with.


----------



## Dalton

Alomoes said:


> Nope. It makes you my conflictor. Conflictors destroy. Logically, you are destroying.


How am I logically destroying? 

And if I'm your conflictor, are you also admitting that you're ESE?

But seriously, what were you talking about in that post? I can't make sense of it.


----------



## Max

@Dalton - I can't make sense of anything. Lol.

Sent from My Pocket Using Iso-Talk Mark II


----------



## Dalton

Isotropic said:


> @_Dalton_ - I can't make sense of anything. Lol.
> 
> Sent from My Pocket Using Iso-Talk Mark II


I'm sorry, son, but there is no cure... *pats your shoulder*


----------



## Max

Dalton said:


> I'm sorry, son, but there is no cure... *pats your shoulder*


Which one? :/

Sent from My Pocket Using Iso-Talk Mark II


----------



## Dalton

Isotropic said:


> Which one? :/
> 
> Sent from My Pocket Using Iso-Talk Mark II


....AIDS?

I really have no clue what you're asking.


----------



## Max

Dalton said:


> ....AIDS?
> 
> I really have no clue what you're asking.


Which shoulder? I have two right, and not just one long shoulder with two different ends? 

Sent from My Pocket Using Iso-Talk Mark II


----------



## Sixty Nein

I am fairly questioning of my own "status" (toppest lels) of a gamma, but I did have this conversation with someone who is quite certainly of that persuasion. Or at least it seemed to be "Fi" in that system, as far as it's relationship to static relationships to objects.

On a chatroom that I was visiting, I posted a link to a video and this person came up to me and told me it was crap. I quite liked it, because I have a tendency of being a snob, whenever I posted a video that was crass and tasteless (A mashup of death grips and some electronica group. I unno). She wanted me to justify my taste, and I said "eh you get used to it". Then she got up on my ass and said that sort of shit just means that it was terrible and you have somehow managed to forget it. I told her that the initial reaction isn't the end-all and upon revisiting something, you might find qualities that are unlikable or likable about it. Then she just told me that she hardly ever really experiences something like that, because she doesn't really like anime and all of her friends tried to force her to watch crappy anime, telling her "it'll just grow on ya."

I wonder if that's something that Fi-types or just gammas in general might think of it. Maybe ESIs and SEEs?


----------



## Word Dispenser

Twrankt said:


> I am fairly questioning of my own "status" (toppest lels) of a gamma, but I did have this conversation with someone who is quite certainly of that persuasion. Or at least it seemed to be "Fi" in that system, as far as it's relationship to static relationships to objects.
> 
> On a chatroom that I was visiting, I posted a link to a video and this person came up to me and told me it was crap. I quite liked it, because I have a tendency of being a snob, whenever I posted a video that was crass and tasteless (A mashup of death grips and some electronica group. I unno). She wanted me to justify my taste, and I said "eh you get used to it". Then she got up on my ass and said that sort of shit just means that it was terrible and you have somehow managed to forget it. I told her that the initial reaction isn't the end-all and upon revisiting something, you might find qualities that are unlikable or likable about it. Then she just told me that she hardly ever really experiences something like that, because she doesn't really like anime and all of her friends tried to force her to watch crappy anime, telling her "it'll just grow on ya."
> 
> I wonder if that's something that Fi-types or just gammas in general might think of it. Maybe ESIs and SEEs?


I remember when I was a kid, I hated anime-style. It was goofy and strange to me.

Then I started drawing it for some reason-- I liked it. 

Now, I'm like... Some is goofy, some I like. (In terms of artistic style). But, the saving grace of any anime is the character/story content.

But, what you're describing seems Beta in nature.


----------



## Monkey King

Dalton said:


> "what's your favorite color, ENTJs?" :tongue:


This is so offensive. Definitely gets me heated.


----------



## Monkey King

Twrankt said:


> I am fairly questioning of my own "status" (toppest lels) of a gamma, but I did have this conversation with someone who is quite certainly of that persuasion. Or at least it seemed to be "Fi" in that system, as far as it's relationship to static relationships to objects.
> 
> On a chatroom that I was visiting, I posted a link to a video and this person came up to me and told me it was crap. I quite liked it, because I have a tendency of being a snob, whenever I posted a video that was crass and tasteless (A mashup of death grips and some electronica group. I unno). She wanted me to justify my taste, and I said "eh you get used to it". Then she got up on my ass and said that sort of shit just means that it was terrible and you have somehow managed to forget it. I told her that the initial reaction isn't the end-all and upon revisiting something, you might find qualities that are unlikable or likable about it. Then she just told me that she hardly ever really experiences something like that, because she doesn't really like anime and all of her friends tried to force her to watch crappy anime, telling her "it'll just grow on ya."
> 
> I wonder if that's something that Fi-types or just gammas in general might think of it. Maybe ESIs and SEEs?


Seems like this person is just venting. Peer pressured to watch anime, I find humor in that and would probably laugh at her. Anyway, I wouldn't say something is crap but I would say I didn't care for it. There's a lot of art I find to be garbage but I can't really say much if the price tag says "$10,000". I simply would wonder about how that type of art gained such appeal to have that type of monetary value.

I probably won't ask you to explain yourself because things like that is a matter of taste. The only time I'd question it is if I get criticized for what I like.


----------



## Monkey King

Bash said:


> Will it backfire on you or the delegator if it fails?


I don't fail. But no reason why I should look like the idiot. I've asked for the information 2 weeks ago. the information changed 3 times within those 2 weeks. 7pm last night I get an email of all things telling me the information changed once again. For something like that, a phone call is much faster.

From my internal calendar, it'll all get done 6 days before hard deadline. Just a bit pissy I guess that I didn't get it in on my soft deadline which would have been today.


----------



## Bash

Monkey King said:


> I don't fail. But no reason why I should look like the idiot. I've asked for the information 2 weeks ago. the information changed 3 times within those 2 weeks. 7pm last night I get an email of all things telling me the information changed once again. For something like that, a phone call is much faster.
> 
> From my internal calendar, it'll all get done 6 days before hard deadline. Just a bit pissy I guess that I didn't get it in on my soft deadline which would have been today.


What I suggested was to let it fail, to make them change.


----------



## Monkey King

Bash said:


> What I suggested was to let it fail, to make them change.


It's not really in my best interest to have it fail. Though, I wouldn't get the heat SHOULD it fail.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

After some Skype chats I confirmed why I hate people that stick to their cultures like crazy, as they end chaining their relatives to outdated traditions, so they can control those people instead of letting them to do what they really want.


----------



## redneck15

Zamyatin said:


> Ugh, working with an LIE. The guy's smart as hell, and we get along well, but it always seems like we never quite communicate efficiently. He always seems to think I'm thinking carelessly, and he always seems to miss the point of something and often expresses a fairly superficial understanding of what's going on.
> 
> Mirror relations, man. Probably doesn't help that he's Te subtype and I'm Ni subtype, which just magnifies our cognitive differences.


It always seems to me like the ILI goes off-topic into totally irrelevant stuff. I don't see where they're going a lot of the time.


----------



## Sygma

Blue Flare said:


> After some Skype chats I confirmed why I hate people that stick to their cultures like crazy, as they end chaining their relatives to outdated traditions, so they can control those people instead of letting them to do what they really want.


Other thing : they don't know jack about the world and that's pretty sad too when you wanna talk about stuff.


----------



## Vermillion

It's fun to notice the little hints of someone's personality you get through their "type me" thread titles.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Amaterasu said:


> It's fun to notice the little hints of someone's personality you get through their "type me" thread titles.


I made, "The 80." A trend.


----------



## Word Dispenser

@Entropic is officially back!

I don't know when he'll be _un_officially back, but...

Yeah.

This calls for a Gamma party.

Which generally means glaring at one another as you productively watch anime on separate screens.


----------



## Vermillion

Did god create man in his image, or did we create god in our image?


----------



## Bash

Both are a reflection of how they see themselves.


----------



## Vermillion

Bash said:


> Both are a reflection of how they see themselves.


Can you explain?

Also, respond to my PM :angry:


----------



## Entropic

Amaterasu said:


> Can you explain?
> 
> Also, respond to my PM :angry:


It's pretty simple - it's like the chicken and the egg. No matter from what perspective you start with, it's reliant on the other to exist. Of course assuming that gods do exist since someone may be a smart-ass and say that god isn't real. That's beyond the point though. What's the point of gods with no humans to worship them, and what's the point to humans with no gods governing them?


----------



## Vermillion

Entropic said:


> It's pretty simple - it's like the chicken and the egg. No matter from what perspective you start with, it's reliant on the other to exist. Of course assuming that gods do exist since someone may be a smart-ass and say that god isn't real. That's beyond the point though. What's the point of gods with no humans to worship them, and what's the point to humans with no gods governing them?


Ok thanks :3 Assuming what you're explaining is the same as what he intended to express, I get it now.

I was also a little worried that someone might be a dick and say "well god isn't real so it doesn't matter, blah blah"


----------



## Entropic

Amaterasu said:


> Ok thanks :3 Assuming what you're explaining is the same as what he intended to express, I get it now.


Can't promise that it is, but that's how I interpret it anyway.


----------



## Bash

Amaterasu said:


> Also, respond to my PM :angry:


4D Se in the shape of a red, angry face? I'd better get to it.


----------



## Bash

Amaterasu said:


> Can you explain?


Entropic covered it rather well. A man-made God would tell us a lot if which traits they would consider divine.


----------



## Sygma

Blue Flare said:


> After some Skype chats I confirmed why I hate people that stick to their cultures like crazy, as they end chaining their relatives to outdated traditions, so they can control those people instead of letting them to do what they really want.


This. Altho I tend to do that on a very special occasion, in occurence, my birthday. If I'm in a relationship I really want to have as much time as possible with my significant other in that very day so I tend to see everyone else before she actually can do what she want to do. You can throw rocks at me but I don't know I really like it that way, with just her and me for the longest period of the day without any interruption from anyone else ;D 

But all the rest, HOLY SHIT. All these traditions are fine but ... really, forcin people to be a part of ? intention -> tradition


----------



## Ixim

Entropic said:


> It's pretty simple - it's like the chicken and the egg. No matter from what perspective you start with, it's reliant on the other to exist. Of course assuming that gods do exist since someone may be a smart-ass and say that god isn't real. That's beyond the point though. What's the point of gods with no humans to worship them, and what's the point to humans with no gods governing them?


Actually, what I am pretty convinced to be true(and this is Fi dom speaking! Tremble and despair) is that there was some kind of a prehistoric animal that laid an egg which froze then emerged some few million years after. Actually I believe there was more than one. This is how it came to be. After the meltdown, the animals adapted.

...it was most likely some type of dinosaur. As we all know, dinos hatched in eggs(hence the alien eggs? heh) and we also know that some dinos actually devolved. So, the most logical conclusion would be:

Dino -> Egg -> Ice Age -> Chicken

Hence Egg came before the Chicken!

QED


----------



## Entropic

Ixim said:


> Actually, what I am pretty convinced to be true(and this is Fi dom speaking! Tremble and despair) is that there was some kind of a prehistoric animal that laid an egg which froze then emerged some few million years after. Actually I believe there was more than one. This is how it came to be. After the meltdown, the animals adapted.
> 
> ...it was most likely some type of dinosaur. As we all know, dinos hatched in eggs(hence the alien eggs? heh) and we also know that some dinos actually devolved. So, the most logical conclusion would be:
> 
> Dino -> Egg -> Ice Age -> Chicken
> 
> Hence Egg came before the Chicken!
> 
> QED


But most dinosaurs were born from eggs. How do you solve that problem? The primordial soup did not create eggs, though.


----------



## Ixim

Entropic said:


> But dinosaurs were born from eggs. How do you solve that problem? The primordial soup did not create eggs, though.


It doesn't matter, does it? The matter at hand, watch the Se now!, is whether the CHICKEN or the EGG came first. And as is clearly obvious, we eliminated chicken, so...who cares about the dino and the egg discussion. That's a talk for another time.

Right!


----------



## Word Dispenser

How long, Entropic!?

HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU?!

NOT EVEN A MONTH.

Sigh.

At least the ban post was amusing.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa

Word Dispenser said:


> How long, Entropic!?
> 
> HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU?!
> 
> NOT EVEN A MONTH.
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> At least the ban post was amusing.


Lol. I thought some user was fucking around when I first saw it. I was all looks like someone else is going to be getting an infraction now, but nooope it turned out to be a mod. I guess they were feeling saucy. XD


----------



## The Portia Spider

Well, he's a big fish swimming around in a small pond.. Fins are bound to get bruised. A lot of people will take offense to that, but that’s because a lot of people are pussies. Take your fucking tampons out and stop crying like a bunch of *******. ffs.


----------



## Word Dispenser

The Portia Spider said:


> Well, he's a big fish swimming around in a small pond.. Fins are bound to get bruised. A lot of people will take offense to that, but that’s because a lot of people are pussies. Take your fucking tampons out and stop crying like a bunch of *******. ffs.


Hahahahahahahhaahahaha.... 

Yeeaaahh... True.


----------



## MightyLizardKing

gammas why do u guys take life so seriously??!?!?


----------



## Bash

MightyLizardKing said:


> gammas why do u guys take life so seriously??!?!?


I don't take your post seriously. So, that's that.


----------



## Bash

Word Dispenser said:


> How long, Entropic!?
> 
> HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU?!
> 
> NOT EVEN A MONTH.
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> At least the ban post was amusing.


What did he do?


----------



## Golden Rose

Bash said:


> I don't take your post seriously. So, that's that.


You crack me up, Gamma humor is the best.


----------



## Valtire

MightyLizardKing said:


> gammas why do u guys take life so seriously??!?!?


We don't. We're just naturals at convincing others that we take life seriously.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Bash said:


> What did he do?


Got banned from PerC for 3 months.

Check out the bans/infractions in spam sub-forum.


----------



## Bash

Word Dispenser said:


> Got banned from PerC for 3 months.
> 
> Check out the bans/infractions in spam sub-forum.


I see. Thank you!


----------



## Bash

Hotaru said:


> You crack me up, Gamma humor is the best.


Cheers, love.


----------



## MightyLizardKing

Bash said:


> I don't take your post seriously. So, that's that.


why dont u take my post seriously/!? plz tell me! sometimes i struggle with gamas because they dont take me serisly ( they think im stupid how come they do that?!? plz plz tell me!


----------



## Bash

MightyLizardKing said:


> why dont u take my post seriously/!? plz tell me! sometimes i struggle with gamas because they dont take me serisly ( they think im stupid how come they do that?!? plz plz tell me!


I think you actually want to know, even though your writing style speaks against it. 

Gammas will consider scatter-brainyness lack of determination. The narrower the focus, the more serious someone will be considered in whatever they are pursuing.


----------



## MightyLizardKing

Bash said:


> I think you actually want to know, even though your writing style speaks against it.
> 
> Gammas will consider scatter-brainyness lack of determination. The narrower the focus, the more serious someone will be considered in whatever they are pursuing.


oh good thnx u i may b able 2 get mkre more gamma friends now. ))

scatter brainynes is not lac of determination though, its openness and genuin intrest in the world lol


----------



## Psithurism

MightyLizardKing said:


> oh good thnx u i may b able 2 get mkre more gamma friends now. ))


Go into the world and behave like you do here and I'm sure they will welcome you with open arms.


----------



## Ixim

Let me do it @Bash. Please? Ok, thanks! Time for impressive FiSe arse kincking!
@MightyLizardKing: Dust off out of our territory and go play with your toy will you? I hear it's high time to contemplate all its potential uses. 3,2,1...GO!

-DING! ILE has left the building!


----------



## Bash

Ixim said:


> Let me do it @_Bash_. Please? Ok, thanks! Time for impressive FiSe arse kincking!
> 
> @_MightyLizardKing_: Dust off out of our territory and go play with your toy will you? I hear it's high time to contemplate all its potential uses. 3,2,1...GO!
> 
> -DING! ILE has left the building!
> 
> edit: he sure is quite an example of immature ILE innit?


You go ahead, my ESI friend. = )


----------



## Ixim

MightyLizardKing said:


> oh good thnx u i may b able 2 get mkre more gamma friends now. ))
> 
> scatter brainynes is not lac of determination though, its openness and genuin intrest in the world lol


Of course it is bad for you! When a bus hits you because you contemplated all the possible uses that an iPhone could have(or even better toy for you-their brand new ILE watch!), don't come crying to us...


----------



## Dalton

Sygma said:


> Monkey King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I encourage you to break the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a secret code sayin that your body is ready ?
Click to expand...


----------



## Ixim

Monkey King said:


> I encourage you to break the rules.


And why?

Only to make new, more efficient rules so as to benefit all parties involved?


----------



## Monkey King

Damn the horn dogs in this forum lmao


----------



## Monkey King

Ixim said:


> And why?
> 
> Only to make new, more efficient rules so as to benefit all parties involved?


Expecting efficiency and consistency when there are no existing benefits in a group is funny. In that situation, I'm thinking of me.


----------



## Ixim

Monkey King said:


> Expecting efficiency and consistency when there are no existing benefits in a group is funny. In that situation, I'm thinking of me.


Yeah, now that you said it, it was what I meant all along. So you could be better off.

Look, you're my dual, you can't lie to me  . That blade cuts the both ways lol wooops!


----------



## aendern

So today I read about the Quadras for the first time, and holy shit if it wasn't the most annoyingly accurate slap in the face I've ever read.

No wonder I suck at talking to people. 

My whole life I've always struggled with the concept of "what do I say? I don't have anything to say. How do you talk without having a purpose?"

The only conversations I have are when I need information from someone. I don't even talk otherwise.



> Groups made up of primarily Gamma types tend to be small in size; perhaps 6 at most. Laughter and very obvious displays of emotion are subdued, instead, there is a lot of smiling, amusement with ironic and witty remarks or, when serious subjects or not very happy personal experiences are discussed, a serious demeanour. Even such small groups tend to split into smaller ones; perhaps 3 is the ideal "group" size for Gammas.
> 
> Group discussions are focused on exchange of information and ideas on subjects of mutual interest, discussing and planning activities together, or on personal experiences. The latter are usually discussed not with the purpose of making people laugh or to boast one's position but to get an insight into the lessons to be drawn from such experiences.
> 
> Gammas usually dislike being "drawn" into larger groups where loud exchanges of jokes and quick shifting of one subject to the other are the norm, as in a large dinner table in an informal environment, especially if the group is also somewhat "artificial" as in work colleagues or business partners where personal relationships weren't really spontaneously formed. In such situations, Gammas will tend to focus on the persons sitting immediately near them in order to engage them in more individual conversations or will tend to remain mostly silent, not really participating in the group atmosphere, making the impression of being "introverts" in the everyday meaning of the term.
> 
> Once a group is formed, it tends to be wary for some time of "newcomers", being neither exclusive nor inclusive on purpose. Conversations often focus on trends regarding material and yet personal issues, such as career prospects and developments, success or failure of financial investments and enterprises, and the future prospects of romantic relationships, as well as the reasons for the failure of past ones. In more light-hearted moments, such talks get a "bawdy" flavor with some slight teasing.
> 
> Other subjects tend to focus on internal work politics from the point of view of how it jeopardizes general efficiency, the nonsense of bureaucracy, and how to be better than competitors.


It's like they followed me around and wrote down their observations.

(did anyone else read the Beta section and immediately think of someone they know in real life whom they hate?)


----------



## Kintsugi

I wish I could still justify feeling like such an outsider with the "Gamma" label.

Turns out, I'm just a fucking weirdo.


----------



## Aiwass

Yeah, when I read this I thought "this is _absolutely_ me" and I'm certain those traits are reinforced by the fact that I'm a 5w6 with a strong self-preservation instinct. Gamma characteristics seem to manifest themselves somewhat differently in ESIs and SEEs.

The description I saw about the group behavior of Betas summarizes what I dislike about people when they are interacting in large numbers, although living with a 7w8 SLE has taught me how to handle these types individually...


----------



## Monkey King

Today something provoked. Regional manager was asking for for a summary sheet for one of my events. He had written a form that was not mandated by the organization as an official form to turn in and in fact I don't think he's even notified anyone above him that it exists. Therefore I suspect that the form has not been tested for errors and whether or not the questions will actually track x-data. 

Ok, story short this guy keeps going back and forth telling my team he's confused with our numbers. I sent him a lengthy email asking him to clarify the language on his form. Let me tell you something, that form is SO VAGUE I want to burn it in front of him. It's that bad. I just cannot...

/venting


----------



## Wolfskralle

I'm not particularly excited by the "gamma" label. 
At first I thought I identify with Alpha, cause I am pretty hedonistic and like good foods/drinks, but when I read the gamma description to friend I heard "what a funny thing someone wrote about you". Skewed self-perception I guess. Or these desciptions are just vague; on the second read I can see how gamma fits, especially parts that emphasize the Fe disvaluing. 
Thinking about other quadras, I could see Alpha people (whom I actually met during my life) as peoples who aren't a threat, but are focused on completely different things in life, hence with whom comunication tend to be difficult. Betas are enemies. More or less. Detlas I see as allies, though in-real-life delta NFs tend to find me too intense.


----------



## The Exception

wolf12345 said:


> I'm not particularly excited by the "gamma" label.


Wanna trade? :happy:


----------



## Kintsugi

So, on my typology adventures I came to realize that the only thing that really "makes sense" and is fairly easily applied to my real-life experiences is Socionics. 

Enneagram is just too wishy-washy. Maybe its the inferior Ni. It just doesn't do anything for me anymore. All I see is people using the various types to confirm and seek validation externally for their self-perception/identity. I'm not sure how helpful that is in the grand scheme of things.

Oh well.


----------



## Figure

Kintsugi said:


> So, on my typology adventures I came to realize that the only thing that really "makes sense" and is fairly easily applied to my real-life experiences is Socionics.
> 
> Enneagram is just too wishy-washy. Maybe its the inferior Ni. It just doesn't do anything for me anymore. All I see is people using the various types to confirm and seek validation externally for their self-perception/identity. I'm not sure how helpful that is in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> Oh well.


I don't think it's inferior Ni that's bugging you. I think your criticism of how a lot of people treat the theory is very valid. 

I think it's actually Ne that is getting to you - and don't worry, it is to me too. If you were to take a poll of the MBTI types of the people on that forum, you would have a TON of ENFP, ENTP, INFP, and some (fewer) INTP. I think that's responsible for a lot of the discussion on trite external traits and connecting them to shit like planets, etc. When you look at enneagram authors, its much of the same - Fauvres are INFP and ENFP, Russ Hudson is either INFP or INTP, Claudio Naranjo actually tests in MBTI as an INTP. Sandra Maitri's writing bleeds INFJ, but other than her, pretty much all of the "authority" text that is tossed around on that forum is influenced by Ne. I think it's kind of hilarious that the ENFP on that forum adore Naranjo's writing, since he would Supervise them XD

Don't worry about the enneagram. Socionics is I think equally helpful, just in a completely different arena, and frankly, given your type, an arena you're going to spend more time in (interpersonal).


----------



## Abraxas

I took another long break from PerC the last few months, and during that time I've been studying a lot of the changes in the DSM-V, and specifically reading further into personality disorders. It's definitely a can of worms. There are lots of different prominent speakers that each have their own realm of expertise for each and every disorder, but specific (at least, as it relates to my own history of abuse) were the subjects of borderline personality, anti-social personality (also sometimes called psychopathy/sociopathy), narcissism, and various forms of dependency, especially co-dependency.

Essentially, you can break these all down into the same basic problem. At an early age, during the so-called "formative years", a child becomes strongly conditioned by the behavior of one or both parents. Children need to feel loved and encouraged as well as disciplined, and they respond to operant conditioning very strongly when they're extremely young.

There are essentially three outcomes. In the ideal case, both parents have discernment - which is to say, they are mature enough to know what kind of guidance their child needs in order to train it to respond positively to culturally normative values and equip their child to integrate easily into society and bond with others. At this point, as a disclaimer, let me just say I am not saying that it is healthy to brainwash your children to adhere to the status quo - there are many aspects of society that need improvement. I am merely saying, that kind of deeper analysis comes with discernment, which would already need to be there for such an analysis to be rational to begin with.

However, in the unfortunate case number one, we have one or both parents essentially conditioning their child to meet their demands in a very specific way, while punishing too harsh or severely - possibly through isolation, or even physical abuse - whenever the child does not behave as desired. This conditions the child to learn that it is only worthy, only "good" and only lovable when it satisfies the demands placed upon it - and as children _need_ to feel loved and accepted, they will seek to obey. If you can see where that is going, then you see how that turns into some form of dependency, which in turn creates a very distinct type of person that everyone has probably met at some point.

In the unfortunate case number two, one or both parents condition their children in an _erratic_ way. What this means is that, the demands change constantly, the child has no idea how to please its caregiver. It doesn't understand what to do. Everything it tries is discouraged or ignored. The child begins to learn through this conditioning that it simply _isn't worthy period_. It simply _is not good_ at all. Because you see, in the previous example, there was at least a "way out" of the shame. As long as I do this, mommy and daddy love me. But in this second example, _nothing satisfies_ the parent, and so the child never acquires a means to feel any self-worth.

It is the second case that is really disheartening, and those cases manifest into narcissism, borderline personality, and so forth. Because that deep insecurity is always there, the child _must_ find a way to cope with that constant feeling of shame. And it does this one way or another. In the case of the narcissist, it seeks recognition, achievement, and generally works hard at emulating or becoming a kind of spectacle that others admire and respect. Ordinarily this isn't necessarily bad, but it becomes unhealthy when, in the _absence_ of that admiration, the child lashes out and _demands_ it.

You see this sort of thing all over these forums. Someone will state their theory or opinion about some aspect of MBTI, or Socionics, or someone else's type, or whatever. And then they get met with resistance - someone doesn't agree, or someone is overtly rude in their response. As soon as this occurs, the insecurity of the narcissist is triggered - they feel threatened, and must assert their dominance, their control, to reinforce their belief that they have value and should not feel ashamed. So they can act very passive aggressively, or even outright aggressive. There is a whole body of literature published that talks about the various forms of narcissism and how it manifests. I highly recommend even googling it, or just watching a few youtube videos on it so you can recognize it when it happens and learn how to ignore/avoid getting sucked into arguments with such people.

Borderline individuals are arguably even more volatile, because the narcissist at least has his (or her) power base - some "objective" point of view that they can use to leverage their dominance and superiority. They can point at their achievements, or they might belong to a clique of supporters who will all jump into a debate and start taking their side, thus fueling their ego and perpetuating their remorseless negativity. But the borderline person has nothing like that. Instead of carefully crafting a strong central persona that becomes their "defacto" or default identity, the borderline individual is just a series of masks within masks. They become whoever, whatever, they need to be to receive affection and admiration from whatever the object of their desire happens to be at the time. The key difference here is that the narcissist is consistently the same, and comes across as highly ambitious or dominant, whereas the borderline type tends to be more submissive, and often has no real self-image. Thus they wander about and waffle about constantly.

I see the second type come up a lot with people who are insecure about what their type actually is. Now, I want to make it clear, that a distinction I make here is that, as long as your interest in MBTI, Socionics, or whatever, is just topical, and not an _obsession_, one that comes at the price of serious self-doubt, insults to your ego, money, time, or whatever else, then it's fine. But if you are the sort of person who is seriously disturbed by what your "real" type is, and can't decide, to the point that it causes you severe anxiety, or stress in any way, then at some point you need to wonder _why_ you are having such a hard time identifying yourself. Is it really the model, or is it _you_?

These sorts of things obviously don't apply to most people. But they _do_ apply to more people than you'd think. And naturally, these kinds of insecurities - we all have them, to a degree. It's when they are actually a detriment to having a rational discussion, or cause people to start being rude and disrespectful, that you have to stop and take a step back, and recognize that something is at work in that person that has nothing to do with being more of a thinker and less of a feeler, or more this and less that. Or favoring one cognitive function over another. It probably has to do with the consequences of some kind of bad conditioning that they received growing up, or something like that. Who they would otherwise be, if they had been nurtured, or who they would be if - at this point in their life - they had simply grown past their immaturity, might be so alien to who they think they are, and who they act like in a given context, that it becomes next to useless to even speculate what their type may be, or to use that person as a case example of a type when trying to form a comparison in your own mind.


----------



## Kintsugi

Abraxas said:


> These sorts of things obviously don't apply to most people. But they _do_ apply to more people than you'd think. And naturally, these kinds of insecurities - we all have them, to a degree. It's when they are actually a detriment to having a rational discussion, or cause people to start being rude and disrespectful, that you have to stop and take a step back, and recognize that something is at work in that person that has nothing to do with being more of a thinker and less of a feeler, or more this and less that. Or favoring one cognitive function over another. It probably has to do with the consequences of some kind of bad conditioning that they received growing up, or something like that. Who they would otherwise be, if they had been nurtured, or who they would be if - at this point in their life - they had simply grown past their immaturity, might be so alien to who they think they are, and who they act like in a given context, that it becomes next to useless to even speculate what their type may be, or to use that person as a case example of a type when trying to form a comparison in your own mind.


I knew this before I discovered typology. This is why it confused me.

Full of narrow-minded judgements.

People need to engage with the real world.


----------



## aendern

Kintsugi said:


> So, on my typology adventures I came to realize that the only thing that really "makes sense" and is fairly easily applied to my real-life experiences is Socionics.
> 
> Enneagram is just too wishy-washy. Maybe its the inferior Ni. It just doesn't do anything for me anymore. All I see is people using the various types to confirm and seek validation externally for their self-perception/identity. I'm not sure how helpful that is in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> Oh well.


I completely agree with you. I find enneagram very hard to identify with.


----------



## Kintsugi

emberfly said:


> I completely agree with you. I find enneagram very hard to identify with.


I think there is something more to it, I'm just not heavily invested it, nor do I have much spare time to research it further right now. @Figure gave me some good advice so, maybe sometime in the future, when life is not quite as crazy/hectic as it is right now, I'll revisit it. 

As it stands, I know enough about Enneagram to be frustrated by the stereotypes and a lot of the mainstream ideas flung about mindlessly on that subforum. I do not, however, have the knowledge or understanding to be able to navigate my way through the BS. I just end up getting irritated and haphazardly finding myself in debates where I am unable to argue my point or articulate my ideas because I still have no solid fundamental understanding of the whole thing...

I suspect I will go back to Enneagram eventually. It's a learning process.


----------



## Figure

Kintsugi said:


> I think there is something more to it, I'm just not heavily invested it, nor do I have much spare time to research it further right now. @_Figure_ gave me some good advice so, maybe sometime in the future, when life is not quite as crazy/hectic as it is right now, I'll revisit it.
> 
> As it stands, I know enough about Enneagram to be frustrated by the stereotypes and a lot of the mainstream ideas flung about mindlessly on that subforum. I do not, however, have the knowledge or understanding to be able to navigate my way through the BS. I just end up getting irritated and haphazardly finding myself in debates where I am unable to argue my point or articulate my ideas because I still have no solid fundamental understanding of the whole thing...
> 
> I suspect I will go back to Enneagram eventually. It's a learning process.


Yeah, again I understand where you're coming from. Just because I feel like "preaching" (or whatever it is that 1's do XD ) 

Really, when I evaluate a type theory, I look for what predictably happens the same way, over a long span of time. That's what tells you the theory works. The theory should measure these patterns, and tell you how to identify them in the real world. People will disagree with this which is fine, but if you cut through all of the non-productive bullshit in both theories you are left with:



Socionics ==> intertype relationships 
Enneagram ==> passion, defense structure, self-image, and virtue 

What you see over and over with intertype relationships is a pattern of feeling compensated or uncompensated when you interact with people of a given type, and a set of unconscious impressions of these types that influences your attraction/repulsion to them. The theory tells you whose communication will be confusing, helpful, stimulating, offensive, pressuring, complementary to yours etc in advance. 

What you see over and over with enneagram is an unconscious, fixed worldview that decides how you approach almost any thought, experience, feeling, or action. It basically tells you how you framed your self value and ability to survive as a child, and how that self-image becomes your programmed mentality as an adult. The enneagram tells you you are clinging to a blanket from childhood, and how you continue to clutch it as an adult (in the form of defense mechanisms). Once you are aware of what you are clutching, it's absurdly interesting to see how you use these defenses like clockwork in your daily life (because to you, they aren't defenses but just what seems like reality). And also really interesting to challenge yourself to uncoil them a bit.

It's not like your enneatype/the way you are programmed is going to be obvious for everyone. You have to think beyond your own programming to see how deeply programmed you are, which is obviously counter-intuitive XD


EDIT: @Abraxas (welcome back), a lot of what you wrote plays into how the enneatypes were conceptualized. Each of the 9 types entails an archetypal "storyline" similar/a variation of the examples you gave.


----------



## Kintsugi

@_Figure_

That made a lot of sense, thanks! I am totally on the same page as you (no surprise there ).



> Really, when I evaluate a type theory, I look for what predictably happens the same way, over a long span of time. That's what tells you the theory works. The theory should measure these patterns, and tell you how to identify them in the real world. People will disagree with this which is fine, but if you cut through all of the non-productive bullshit in both theories you are left with:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socionics ==> intertype relationships
> Enneagram ==> passion, defense structure, self-image, and virtue


Yes, this is my approach too! I have been far more successful with Socionics than with Enneagram though. I am aware I need to spend more time studying it, I just got so put-off by all the long-winded delusional crap on that sub-forum. It does my head in, lol. 

I guess, I get confused trying to "measure" these things in the real-world when it comes to Enneagram.



> What you see over and over with enneagram is an unconscious, fixed worldview that decides how you approach almost any thought, experience, feeling, or action. It basically tells you how you framed your self value and ability to survive as a child, and how that self-image becomes your programmed mentality as an adult. The enneagram tells you you are clinging to a blanket from childhood, and how you continue to clutch it as an adult (in the form of defense mechanisms). Once you are aware of what you are clutching, it's absurdly interesting to see how you use these defenses like clockwork in your daily life (because to you, they aren't defenses but just what seems like reality). And also really interesting to challenge yourself to uncoil them a bit.
> 
> It's not like your enneatype/the way you are programmed is going to be obvious for everyone. You have to think beyond your own programming to see how deeply programmed you are, which is obviously counter-intuitive XD


What about typing others? Are there really observable "patterns"? (people seem to project their unconscious biases onto others, I feel like a mirror a lot of the time.)


----------



## Figure

Kintsugi said:


> I guess, I get confused trying to "measure" these things in the real-world when it comes to Enneagram.


You're at no different of a point than most of the forum. It's just that they're trying to measure (read: idealize) silly external trait stereotypes, which ones are cool, and which ones are not (rolls eyes). 



> [What about typing others? Are there really observable "patterns"? (people seem to project their unconscious biases onto others, I feel like a mirror a lot of the time.)


Yes and no. It is true that each enneagram type has a general set of behavioral and psychological traits that are caused by their type. Whether or not an author (or forum person) explains them clearly is another matter. 

It is hardly a good idea to simply get a whiff of someone's persona online and say "jee, that seems anxious - you must be a 6," or "you are assertive, but not enough to be an 8, so 7w8 with an 8 fix." Some people convinced me of being an 8 because I have a more gutsy side to injustice and hate being controlled (when these pertain to many types). All of these are like looking at a car, and telling someone it was made in Japan because it has a Honda logo on it. 

Observable patterns are more useful for self, in my experience, than in others. Even if you correctly identify someone elses' type based on their behavior, while it's nice to have empathy for the difficulty their type may be causing them, there isn't much else you can do once you know they are type X. Most (not all, but most) people on the enneagram forum who know their stuff do NOT know much about socionics, so they extend the use of the enneagram to territory that socionics covers much better, and in more scrupulous detail. Can't play battleship with chess pieces. Socionics is much more useful for managing/manipulating social situations, and knowing the type descriptions is integral to that, whereas it isn't so important/useful to enneagram because in that theory you're looking inward at your own hidden assumptions and meditating on them. 

You'd want to look for observable patterns in your _own_ behavior, so you can unwind your own ego-structure a bit, and depend less on your defenses.


----------



## pungent

bionic said:


> Nah, just the kids TRYING to be cool.


The coolest.


----------



## bionic

pungent said:


> The coolest.


----------



## pungent

bionic said:


>


<3 BENDER



















I need to incorporate "you f*ckin' dild*s" into my life.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Hey, @Entropic: Do you think that Dream of the Endless from the Sandman graphic novels was an ILI? Seemed like it to me. :kitteh: If you haven't read them, I think you'd like them. Probably.


----------



## Entropic

Brought a big bottle with water (it's really a shaker but with the top taken off) with me. Cat comes and wants to cuddle and then as I look the other way, she begins to drink from my water. I moan at her. Of course it doesn't make her stop. She then begins to dip her paw into the water and waving it around, thus staining me too. Thanks a lot Lina. Not only do you drink from my water but you also dip your paw in it and then wave it a round and make me wet too. I feel the love.

And nope, never read Sandman by Gaiman though I'm familiar with it.


----------



## Zamyatin

Entropic said:


> Brought a big bottle with water (it's really a shaker but with the top taken off) with me. Cat comes and wants to cuddle and then as I look the other way, she begins to drink from my water. I moan at her. Of course it doesn't make her stop. She then begins to dip her paw into the water and waving it around, thus staining me too. Thanks a lot Lina. Not only do you drink from my water but you also dip your paw in it and then wave it a round and make me wet too. I feel the love.
> 
> And nope, never read Sandman by Gaiman though I'm familiar with it.


This whole post sounded way more suggestive than you probably meant, lol.


----------



## Entropic

Zamyatin said:


> This whole post sounded way more suggestive than you probably meant, lol.


That probably says more about your current sexual status, lol.


----------



## Entropic

She did it again, this time knocking out the water bottle in my bed and on me. I love my cat. The irony of it all is that if she was an actual person, I'd type her as an SEE 7.


----------



## MightyLizardKing

Hey Gammas do u guys wanna hang out today? what do you wanna do? something boring, I imagine. Of course doing fun things could damage your image so we wouldn't wanna do that hehe just kidding wanna have a water balloon fight and talk about how we are morally superior to ppl not having water balloon fights?


----------



## Abraxas

Via Te, I create. I take the raw stuff of this world, this dream, this dimension, and I shape it. And I am shaped by it, in the process of creating. The one that speaks, the creator, is part of the creation - an echo, a shadow cast by a brighter light which is the transcendental, the beyond. It is from that transcendental place that the urge to create is generated, _willing me_ to modify the dream to reflect that which is eternal and perfect.

Yet, as I do, I am met with resistance. Dreams are resilient, and not easily deciphered, nor are they easily controlled. Just being aware that one is asleep is not enough. To take control of the dream one must become aware of another dream.

_To take control of the dream, one must become aware of another dream._

*That is the secret.*

Consider, when you lucid dream, you become aware you are dreaming and take control of your dream. But you could only do this because you become _aware_ of something else - _you remember your "real" life. That you are in a bed. That you are named such and such, that you have work in the morning, etc._ Your consciousness becomes partially more conscious of _"reality"_ than the dream you are having, and so the dream no longer has the "reality" that "reality" suddenly now has instead. This is what makes it malleable. The change in perspective.

You can do the same thing in _reverse_.

This dream becomes malleable, less "real", the second you become partially more conscious of another dream.

Fear. You are afraid. "Insanity". People call you insane.

Which people? Who? The people in this dream? Of course they will. Because to them you _are_ insane. In this dream, that is what "insanity" literally _is_.

"But my body will die. I have obligations. Responsibilities."

What dies? Who dies? Your dream-self? Of course it will. That's what "death" is in this dream.

Who cares. Have you never had a dream where you died? You just wake up. Big deal.

But what about the people in your other dreams? Do you suppose they will think you are insane or call you insane for wanting to "wake up" into that world? Of course not. They will think it is healthy. They will tell you that you are "recovering" or whatever. Because in that world, that's what "recovery" is.

Do you understand? It is no different. The only thing that changes is the dream, and the dream-self that you imagine to be your true-self.

That's it.

But here is the deeper point of fact: what does it matter what I dream? If I work with the material in this dream, or another. What difference does it make? I can trade one sandbox for another. So what?

_The act of creation_ - that is what matters. And I can create anything, so why not this? Why not enjoy this dream? _What's the rush?_

I find this dream entertaining while it lasts. Even the bad parts give context to it and make it richer.


----------



## pungent

Entropic said:


> I look the other way, she begins to drink from my water. I moan at her. Of course it doesn't make her stop.
> 
> make me wet too. I feel the love.


Hot.


----------



## Vermillion

Entropic said:


> I love my cat. The irony of it all is that if she was an actual person, I'd type her as an SEE 7.


that's betrayal. How dare you?


----------



## Entropic

Amaterasu said:


> that's betrayal. How dare you?


I do because she's a cat.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Entropic said:


> I do because she's a cat.


Doesnt it make it worse ? :ball::th_blush:


----------



## Strife

where my hoes at


----------



## Kintsugi

Trying to type someone but I can't type for shit...

Does this sound like Gamma-Niness?!



> Time is very fluid to me, though I suppose that understates it. It's like an ocean, in which actions create ripples representating causation. This is core to my perception of reality, and it'spart of the reason I'm rather reticent towards taking action.


----------



## Zamyatin

Kintsugi said:


> Trying to type someone but I can't type for shit...
> 
> Does this sound like Gamma-Niness?!


Just from that it sounds pretty Ni base Se DS, though it could also be IEI.


----------



## Abraxas

Kintsugi said:


> Trying to type someone but I can't type for shit...
> 
> Does this sound like Gamma-Niness?!


Could be. Hard to see thinking or feeling in that excerpt though. Seems like a little of both to me.


----------



## Entropic

crashbandicoot said:


> Doesnt it make it worse ? :ball::th_blush:


Why would it be worse? Also that fucking cat gif, lol. I hate when she does that because I know what's coming and it always makes me a nervous wreak.

As for the quote, I think it seems more ILI than IEI. IEIs tend to be more flowery, for the lack of a better word, when they describe things.


----------



## theredpanda

Pretty sure I'm ILI, but kinda new to socionics XD


----------



## Ixim

emberfly said:


> I relate so much to this post.
> 
> Plus I'm in your exact same shoes--but with the language of German. At this point I'm only learning it because I feel some obligation to finish what I started. I hate having to quit something that I've already invested so much time in.
> 
> But as it is right now, German went from being very useful to me to being completely useless within one plane ride  So. Sucks, but I may stop learning it altogether. I don't know how to justify expending energy into something that has no pay-off.


Finish up and move on! Plus no payoff? Lederhosen girls her hur


----------



## Entropic

Ixim said:


> Finish up and move on! Plus no payoff? Lederhosen girls her hur


Do I even wanna know what that means.


----------



## Ixim

Entropic said:


> Do I even wanna know what that means.


Sure you do! Those girls on Oktoberfest! her her.

Also, you missed me yesterday on skype. Too bad, it's been a riot.

edit: also you've been right about ennea.


----------



## He's a Superhero!

Hey, apparently I'm ESI...How is everyone?


----------



## Word Dispenser

He's a Superhero! said:


> Hey, apparently I'm ESI...How is everyone?


Nuuuu.. You're SEI! COME TO THE DARK SIIIIDE. 

MWA HAHHAHAHAHAAA...

Well, actually, Gammas _would _be the dark side... But, y'know.. Uh.. COME TO DISNEYLAND. :kitteh:


----------



## He's a Superhero!

Word Dispenser said:


> Nuuuu.. You're SEI! COME TO THE DARK SIIIIDE.
> 
> MWA HAHHAHAHAHAAA...
> 
> Well, actually, Gammas _would _be the dark side... But, y'know.. Uh.. COME TO DISNEYLAND. :kitteh:


Seems legit. Tho wouldn't that make me an ISFJ?! D: D: D: *falls over backwards*

Nah, I'm really not Si, I'm most definitely Se.

Oh wait, dark side...You do realize that I barrack for the Sith in Star Wars? I can't stand the Jedi. O_O

This is all very confusing... :S


----------



## Word Dispenser

He's a Superhero! said:


> Seems legit. Tho wouldn't that make me an ISFJ?! D: D: D: *falls over backwards*
> 
> Nah, I'm really not Si, I'm most definitely Se.
> 
> Oh wait, dark side...You do realize that I barrack for the Sith in Star Wars? I can't stand the Jedi. O_O
> 
> This is all very confusing... :S


Oh yeah, you're Australian, aren't you? Haha. 'Barrack'. I learned Australian terms thanks to one of Cue's quirks. 

But, you're even less Fi, surely! I mean, c'monnnn... :kitteh:

I'm not so partial to the red sabres-- They are very... Red. Like Mcdonalds! Or hemoglobin.

Myeh, I don't know. You _could _be Se. I guess. You should get psychoanalyzed by Entropic. Then, you'll see.


----------



## He's a Superhero!

Word Dispenser said:


> Oh yeah, you're Australian, aren't you? Haha. 'Barrack'. I learned Australian terms thanks to one of Cue's quirks.
> 
> But, you're even less Fi, surely! I mean, c'monnnn... :kitteh:
> 
> I'm not so partial to the red sabres-- They are very... Red. Like Mcdonalds! Or hemoglobin.
> 
> Myeh, I don't know. You _could _be Se. I guess. You should get psychoanalyzed by Entropic. Then, you'll see.


Yep, unfortunately, lol.

I relate to both Fi and Fe, but I believe the Fe part is because I'm a 2. Fi is definitely a big part of my nature.

Nuffin wrong with the color red.

Hey, you don't have to believe me as to what type I say I am. I'm happy to get psychoanalyzed, but it would be mostly for the fun of it...But sure, send her my way if she's up for the challenge.


----------



## Ixim

He's a Superhero! said:


> Yep, unfortunately, lol.
> 
> I relate to both Fi and Fe, but I believe the Fe part is because I'm a 2. Fi is definitely a big part of my nature.
> 
> Nuffin wrong with the color red.
> 
> Hey, you don't have to believe me as to what type I say I am. I'm happy to get psychoanalyzed, but it would be mostly for the fun of it...But sure, send her my way if she's up for the challenge.


Yes, go to a good man entropic! Nothing bad ever comes from that!

Also, just for a note, I prefer copper lightsabres. Those two twins from KoTFE copyied my style! Plaugariasm (  ) . RIOT!


----------



## He's a Superhero!

Ixim said:


> Yes, go to a good man entropic! Nothing bad ever comes from that!
> 
> Also, just for a note, I prefer copper lightsabres. Those two twins from KoTFE copyied my style! Plaugariasm (  ) . RIOT!


Very suspicious... 

Copper lightsabres? Cool! I think teal/turquoise would be an interesting color as well.


----------



## Ixim

He's a Superhero! said:


> Very suspicious...
> 
> Copper lightsabres? Cool! I think teal/turquoise would be an interesting color as well.


Yeah, watch the KoTFE trailer for SWTOR: 



 (they have a copper lightsabre) also this:









Guy uses a copper lightsabre as seen here:









And yeah, teal would be nice, but no luck! Only Cyan exists currently afaik.

(also a shameless promotion of one's own character! HAH!)

edit: I happen to think that my character looks better than those two Muscos!


----------



## He's a Superhero!

Ixim said:


> Yeah, watch the KoTFE trailer for SWTOR:
> 
> 
> 
> (they have a copper lightsabre) also this:
> 
> View attachment 349938
> 
> 
> Guy uses a copper lightsabre as seen here:
> 
> View attachment 349946
> 
> 
> And yeah, teal would be nice, but no luck! Only Cyan exists currently afaik.
> 
> (also a shameless promotion of one's own character! HAH!)
> 
> edit: I happen to think that my character looks better than those two Muscos!


:O

Oh my...This actually looks interesting! Sad, but interesting. Very sad actually, because I really think twins are awesome, so I'm like "Why did one of them have to die?!" *falls to knees*


----------



## Ixim

He's a Superhero! said:


> :O
> 
> Oh my...This actually looks interesting! Sad, but interesting. Very sad actually, because I really think twins are awesome, so I'm like "Why did one of them have to die?!" *falls to knees*


And what about my Jedi Knight?


----------



## He's a Superhero!

Ixim said:


> And what about my Jedi Knight?


Do you want an honest response?


----------



## Ixim

He's a Superhero! said:


> Do you want an honest response?


Yes(but don't comment on gfx lol!).


----------



## He's a Superhero!

Ixim said:


> Yes(but don't comment on gfx lol!).


"Meh" ...But then again I am biased against Jedi.

Also the gfx is shocking! >


----------



## Ixim

He's a Superhero! said:


> "Meh" ...But then again I am biased against Jedi.
> 
> Also the gfx is shocking! >


I expected worse!

The only thing I'd edit are the endings of shoulderpads so they are actually round(and so the hair doesn't clip!). If I drew him, I'd draw him with round ones, not these...silly endings. Oh and I'd add a collar. But nothing much.

I put a LOT of time and energy in my characters. And frankly it shows. You wouldn't believe how stupid Knights look in SWTOR otherwise.

Shame I haven't got a good picture of my Sith Marauder. Maybe you'd like his chainmail look more.


----------



## He's a Superhero!

Ixim said:


> I expected worse!
> 
> The only thing I'd edit are the endings of shoulderpads so they are actually round(and so the hair doesn't clip!). If I drew him, I'd draw him with round ones, not these...silly endings. Oh and I'd add a collar. But nothing much.
> 
> I put a LOT of time and energy in my characters. And frankly it shows. You wouldn't believe how stupid Knights look in SWTOR otherwise.
> 
> Shame I haven't got a good picture of my Sith Marauder. Maybe you'd like his chainmail look more.


Well I'm sure he is quite the looker in the MMORPG universe he lives in, but it doesn't do anything for me. It's not bad tho - thus the "meh". You see, I don't really have any particular bone to pick with him, aside from being a Jedi lol! That and I'm not sure about that style mustache with long hair either, but we all have different tastes, and it's not horrible or anything, so no need to mention it really. His facial characteristics aren't ugly, but aren't handsome either, more average yet somewhat interesting, which I do see as a good thing as too many characters are extremes of the other two (either super models or zombie beasts). What else is there to say?

I realize tho that you were limited to the tools they provided you in the character making stage, which doesn't give you that much ability to design.

...btw, aren't we getting a little off topic here?


----------



## Ixim

He's a Superhero! said:


> Well I'm sure he is quite the looker in the MMORPG universe he lives in, but it doesn't do anything for me. It's not bad tho - thus the "meh". You see, I don't really have any particular bone to pick with him, aside from being a Jedi lol! That and I'm not sure about that style mustache with long hair either, but we all have different tastes, and it's not horrible or anything, so no need to mention it really. His facial characteristics aren't ugly, but aren't handsome either, more average yet somewhat interesting, which I do see as a good thing as too many characters are extremes of the other two (either super models or zombie beasts). What else is there to say?
> 
> I realize tho that you were limited to the tools they provided you in the character making stage, which doesn't give you that much ability to design.
> 
> ...btw, aren't we getting a little off topic here?


There is a topic? Oh I haven't noticed! :wink:


----------



## Bash

Just found my way back here. Great start to see two ESIs discussing Star Wars.


----------



## He's a Superhero!

Bash said:


> Just found my way back here. Great start to see two ESIs discussing Star Wars.


And I'm not even a fan, lol! Altho Wookiees will always hold a special place in my heart..


----------



## He's a Superhero!

So "Gamma rays"...are they dangerous?


----------



## Ixim

Bash said:


> Just found my way back here. Great start to see two ESIs discussing Star Wars.


I could be a SEE as well...it's unclear. Still, a Gamma is a Gamma and hence awesome!


----------



## Abraxas

He's a Superhero! said:


> So "Gamma rays"...are they dangerous?


You tell me.


----------



## zinnia

Abraxas said:


> You tell me.


*screams*

Fe, Si!! RUN


----------



## Ixim

Abraxas said:


> You tell me.


What is that? An ILI love sign?


----------



## He's a Superhero!

Abraxas said:


> You tell me.


I like to think so.


----------



## Entropic

He's a Superhero! said:


> So "Gamma rays"...are they dangerous?





Abraxas said:


> You tell me.







There's a metal band for every occasion.


----------



## Vermillion

I've always maintained that if anyone ever wants to see the "bad"/unhealthy side of T types, they should take a trip to the Debate, Critical Thinking and SnR forums. It's so full of people who severely need to be reminded that they should not:
a) reduce people to statistics
b) make people and their diverse situations a variable in some bullshit logical equation
c) define people by their biology, culture and instincts 

There are threads that extend for pages and pages that could simply have been done with in the matter of a few posts because some people can't get it into their heads that sometimes treating humans with some respect and empathy is all it fucking takes to understand the world.

I wish I could broadcast this message in everyone's type threads so people would stop mistyping as NTJs and NTPs to defend their intelligence. There's really no need for the bias towards logical types to exist... everyone's got their own problems and I assure you being disconnected from the reality of the world and its people is nothing to be proud of either. But some people carry their type labels around like fucking talismans and it's just ?????


----------



## Abraxas

Night Huntress said:


> I've always maintained that if anyone ever wants to see the "bad"/unhealthy side of T types, they should take a trip to the Debate, Critical Thinking and SnR forums. It's so full of people who severely need to be reminded that they should not:
> a) reduce people to statistics
> b) make people and their diverse situations a variable in some bullshit logical equation
> c) define people by their biology, culture and instincts
> 
> There are threads that extend for pages and pages that could simply have been done with in the matter of a few posts because some people can't get it into their heads that sometimes treating humans with some respect and empathy is all it fucking takes to understand the world.
> 
> I wish I could broadcast this message in everyone's type threads so people would stop mistyping as NTJs and NTPs to defend their intelligence. There's really no need for the bias towards logical types to exist... everyone's got their own problems and I assure you being disconnected from the reality of the world and its people is nothing to be proud of either. But some people carry their type labels around like fucking talismans and it's just ?????


Not calling you out here (I totally get what you're saying), but coming from the other side of all of that, here's some perspective for you though:

I've always maintained that if anyone ever wants to see the "bad"/unhealthy side of F types, they should take a trip to the Debate, Critical Thinking, and SnR forums. It's so full of people who severely need to be reminded that they should not:
a) feel that statistics "reduce" people
b) get offended by the quantification of people and context
c) define people by anything that isn't quantifiable during a *critical discussion*

There are threads that extend for pages and pages that could simply have been done with in the matter of a few posts because some people can't get it into their heads that sometimes being critical and objective instead of getting emotional and upset is all it fucking takes to understand the world.

I wish I could broadcast this message in everyone's type threads so people would stop mistyping as NFJs and NFPs to defend their integrity. There's really no need for the bias towards ethical types to exist... everyone's got their own problems and I assure you being so sensitive to feelings that you can't handle an amoral objective universe is nothing to be proud of either. But some people carry their type labels around like fucking talismans and it's just ?????


----------



## Vermillion

@_Abraxas_

I made that post assuming people are already familiar with the negative traits of F types. It wasn't to say that T types are all reprehensible people -- I could write so much about their admirable traits, and most of my good friends tend to be thinkers -- NOR to say that feelers are somehow superior. But I recently checked those forums out and they're full of saddening examples of how it's possible for thinkers to ALSO be just as crazy as feelers when unhealthy. I hear a lot about overly emotional and reactive people being crazy, and MUCH less about overly detached and logical people being crazy too. (Of course "emotional and reactive" and "detached and logical" are really simplistic ways to define the differences between unhealthy F and T types, but I'm not trying to be precise here since you say you understood my point.)

In a healthy discussion there's going to be a good balance of both the sides we presented respectively, but it DOES tend to get stupid and overwhelming when one is simply ignored and the other heavily favored. And I *do* still maintain that some things are impossible to understand by means of inserting people into a logical equation or referring to multitudes of diverse people by simply what part of the statistics they represent. There are so many discussions about things like sexualization or racism where people simply don't get that the key to understanding these things is not to sequester yourself in your logical systems, but to just open your mind to the diversity of people's situations.

Moreover, after recently having too much occasion to notice how some people are so _averse_ to the idea of being an F type, I wanted to point out that we've all got our bad sides, thinkers don't represent intelligence in all its forms, and there are advantages and disadvantages that BOTH sides have got, so we're all really in the same boat here.

EDIT: But even so, I get you. In the past week I've had to deal with more illogical discussion than I can bear.


----------



## Abraxas

@Night Huntress

Oh, I know what you meant. That's why I left that disclaimer that I'm not trying to call you out or anything. You're absolutely right, thinkers go way too far and it gets really obnoxious. My only reason for offering up the contrast is because I see it goes both ways all the time. Like, it's not just thinkers, as you say, it's everyone on both sides. Feelers get caught up in feelings, thinkers get caught up in thoughts, and it turns into a big mess that goes on for pages and pages.

Both forms of reasoning have their limits, and it just so happens that each one tends to emphasize those limits in the other side of the fence as a strategy. It's a good and a bad thing, but insecure people tend to take it as a bad thing and get defensive, which turns into passive aggressive bullshit like you see all over this website. I think the more mature types don't feel so threatened by it and know how to lose with grace, or at least acknowledge their limits, and show a little humility. Like, it just is what it is. Because on the one hand, thinkers are great at quantifying things so they can be logically analyzed and categorized, but you can't really quantify everything - and going even further, it's not about whether you can, it's about whether you even _should._

Thinkers are so quick to invent the atomic bomb. Einstein died with regret, and wrote/spoke about how if only he had known, he would never have become a physicist. That's actually kind of heartbreaking to think about. Someone like him, he regretted most of his life's work and died on that note because of what became of it and his lack of foresight. Now, a lot of more progressive colleges teach kids about ethics when they are studying to become science majors, because like, sure you want to rush off and invent robots that can think for themselves, but is that really the right thing to do? Is it _worth it_ in a debate, just to be right, if it means you fuck up someone's day and put them in a bad state?

As I'm getting older, these kinds of feelings matter more and more to me. I always try to weigh them in as a factor now because I'm not always trying to prove myself anymore. I just don't care about winning and being effective at logic at the cost of having no friends, and being seen as a fucking jerk.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Night Huntress said:


> @_Abraxas_
> 
> I made that post assuming people are already familiar with the negative traits of F types. It wasn't to say that T types are all reprehensible people -- I could write so much about their admirable traits, and most of my good friends tend to be thinkers -- NOR to say that feelers are somehow superior. But I recently checked those forums out and they're full of saddening examples of how it's possible for thinkers to ALSO be just as crazy as feelers when unhealthy. I hear a lot about overly emotional and reactive people being crazy, and MUCH less about overly detached and logical people being crazy too. (Of course "emotional and reactive" and "detached and logical" are really simplistic ways to define the differences between unhealthy F and T types, but I'm not trying to be precise here since you say you understood my point.)
> 
> In a healthy discussion there's going to be a good balance of both the sides we presented respectively, but it DOES tend to get stupid and overwhelming when one is simply ignored and the other heavily favored. And I *do* still maintain that some things are impossible to understand by means of inserting people into a logical equation or referring to multitudes of diverse people by simply what part of the statistics they represent. There are so many discussions about things like sexualization or racism where people simply don't get that the key to understanding these things is not to sequester yourself in your logical systems, but to just open your mind to the diversity of people's situations.
> 
> Moreover, after recently having too much occasion to notice how some people are so _averse_ to the idea of being an F type, I wanted to point out that we've all got our bad sides, thinkers don't represent intelligence in all its forms, and there are advantages and disadvantages that BOTH sides have got, so we're all really in the same boat here.
> 
> EDIT: But even so, I get you. In the past week I've had to deal with more illogical discussion than I can bear.


I'm an emotional thinking type, lol. :kitteh: Sometimes my emotions overrides my logic-- Maybe even a lot of times. Most times. I dunno. I don't condescend to say that I can accurately represent my personality on the best of days.

I think one of my favourite examples of ethics vs. logic would be Moose vs. Dean Winchester. On Supernatural.

I dunno if you've seen the show, but even though Moose is the ethical one, the one who is 'softer', in his own way, more likely to be given over to ethical judgements over logical ones, seen as the 'baby' of the brothers-- He's also the one who doesn't let his emotions get the better of him. He doesn't lose his cool. And I've rarely seen him actually cry.

Dean, on the other hand, as 'macho' as he is-- He's actually the one who loses his cool far more often, and makes impulsive, emotional decisions quite a lot of the time. And I've seen him cry at least 5x more often than his brother. He's still, without a doubt in _my _mind, at least, a _logical_ _type_... But, he's also _very _emotional. And probably unhealthy psychologically, insofar as he's depicted on the show.

So, Dean is an example of a logical type who is _also _emotional and reactive.

I think that we're gonna need a whole lot of convincing of the general public of typology, though, to drive that point home. That logical types aren't solely logical, and ethical types aren't solely ethical. For some reason, this is a really difficult thing for people to understand.


----------



## Ixim

Abraxas said:


> @_Night Huntress_
> 
> Oh, I know what you meant. That's why I left that disclaimer that I'm not trying to call you out or anything. You're absolutely right, thinkers go way too far and it gets really obnoxious. My only reason for offering up the contrast is because I see it goes both ways all the time. Like, it's not just thinkers, as you say, it's everyone on both sides. Feelers get caught up in feelings, thinkers get caught up in thoughts, and it turns into a big mess that goes on for pages and pages.
> 
> Both forms of reasoning have their limits, and it just so happens that each one tends to emphasize those limits in the other side of the fence as a strategy. It's a good and a bad thing, but insecure people tend to take it as a bad thing and get defensive, which turns into passive aggressive bullshit like you see all over this website. I think the more mature types don't feel so threatened by it and know how to lose with grace, or at least acknowledge their limits, and show a little humility. Like, it just is what it is. Because on the one hand, thinkers are great at quantifying things so they can be logically analyzed and categorized, but you can't really quantify everything - and going even further, it's not about whether you can, it's about whether you even _should._
> 
> Thinkers are so quick to invent the atomic bomb. Einstein died with regret, and wrote/spoke about how if only he had known, he would never have become a physicist. That's actually kind of heartbreaking to think about. Someone like him, he regretted most of his life's work and died on that note because of what became of it and his lack of foresight. Now, a lot of more progressive colleges teach kids about ethics when they are studying to become science majors, because like, sure you want to rush off and invent robots that can think for themselves, but is that really the right thing to do? Is it _worth it_ in a debate, just to be right, if it means you fuck up someone's day and put them in a bad state?
> 
> As I'm getting older, these kinds of feelings matter more and more to me. I always try to weigh them in as a factor now because I'm not always trying to prove myself anymore. I just don't care about winning and being effective at logic at the cost of having no friends, and being seen as a fucking jerk.


Einstein did not invent atomic bomb. Neither did he say what you wrote.

J.Robert Oppenheimer did that otoh...


----------



## Abraxas

Ixim said:


> Einstein did not invent atomic bomb. Neither did he say what you wrote.
> 
> J.Robert Oppenheimer did that otoh...


No shit. I didn't say he did. I said thinkers did. You're connecting the two statements on your own.

He did, however, regret that his research was used to produce atomic weapons, and said that had he known the Germans wouldn't succeed in producing atomic weapons, he wouldn't have gotten involved.

I read about it in a biography when I was in high school so I barely remember. I might be exaggerating his regret, but it's a fact that he regretted it.


----------



## Ixim

Abraxas said:


> No shit. I didn't say he did. I said thinkers did. You're connecting the two statements on your own.
> 
> He did, however, regret that his research was used to produce atomic weapons, and said that had he known the Germans wouldn't succeed in producing atomic weapons, he wouldn't have gotten involved.
> 
> I read about it in a biography when I was in high school so I barely remember. I might be exaggerating his regret, but it's a fact that he regretted it.


wooops.

Yeah, he regretted it, but not to the amount I thought you said he did. That's because Oppenheimer thought of killing himself because of inventing it(did he?). Einstein merely regretted developing the nuclear theory.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

About the topic of unhealthy logical and ethical types, I think that's worse if they're logical or ethical dominant as one of their perspectives is practically automatic, while the other one requires a bigger effort for being taken into account. So if they end resorting to the perspective that's primitive, then their arguments will be a mess. For irrational types there will be a gap too between the use of logic and ethics, but I suppose that it won't be that extreme compared to rational types in the sense of being able to see that none of those sides can be used for understanding all issues.


----------



## Entropic

Blue Flare said:


> About the topic of unhealthy logical and ethical types, I think that's worse if they're logical or ethical dominant as one of their perspectives is practically automatic, while the other one requires a bigger effort for being taken into account. So if they end resorting to the perspective that's primitive, then their arguments will be a mess. For irrational types there will be a gap too between the use of logic and ethics, but I suppose that it won't be that extreme compared to rational types in the sense of being able to see that none of those sides can be used for understanding all issues.


I think this is right; I think irrational types have an easier time accepting that things don't need to be classified either way. It takes more time for the rational dyads to get there, because they are primarily oriented towards needing to classify first.


----------



## Vermillion

Abraxas said:


> @_Night Huntress_
> 
> Oh, I know what you meant. That's why I left that disclaimer that I'm not trying to call you out or anything. You're absolutely right, thinkers go way too far and it gets really obnoxious. My only reason for offering up the contrast is because I see it goes both ways all the time. Like, it's not just thinkers, as you say, it's everyone on both sides. Feelers get caught up in feelings, thinkers get caught up in thoughts, and it turns into a big mess that goes on for pages and pages.
> 
> Both forms of reasoning have their limits, and it just so happens that each one tends to emphasize those limits in the other side of the fence as a strategy. It's a good and a bad thing, but insecure people tend to take it as a bad thing and get defensive, which turns into passive aggressive bullshit like you see all over this website. I think the more mature types don't feel so threatened by it and know how to lose with grace, or at least acknowledge their limits, and show a little humility. Like, it just is what it is. Because on the one hand, thinkers are great at quantifying things so they can be logically analyzed and categorized, but you can't really quantify everything - and going even further, it's not about whether you can, it's about whether you even _should._
> 
> Thinkers are so quick to invent the atomic bomb. Einstein died with regret, and wrote/spoke about how if only he had known, he would never have become a physicist. That's actually kind of heartbreaking to think about. Someone like him, he regretted most of his life's work and died on that note because of what became of it and his lack of foresight. Now, a lot of more progressive colleges teach kids about ethics when they are studying to become science majors, because like, sure you want to rush off and invent robots that can think for themselves, but is that really the right thing to do? Is it _worth it_ in a debate, just to be right, if it means you fuck up someone's day and put them in a bad state?
> 
> As I'm getting older, these kinds of feelings matter more and more to me. I always try to weigh them in as a factor now because I'm not always trying to prove myself anymore. I just don't care about winning and being effective at logic at the cost of having no friends, and being seen as a fucking jerk.


When threads get overrun by NTs, everything becomes about categorizing and documenting even the simplest of phenomena, resulting in people overcomplicating the point of the thread and talking (fantasizing) about things that are no longer applicable to real people and situations. When they get overrun by SFs, things become all about vapid socializing, definitions go right out of the window and the outcomes of discussion are frequently determined by anecdotal "evidence". When they get overrun by STs, there's TOO much focus on what's real and tangible and how those very, very explicit factors are the only constituents of the variegated world; all other possibilities are bs and if you're gonna question that, you become the victim of a mean/tasteless joke. When they get overrun by NFs, everything becomes about fictional characters, puns, and some psychospiritual waffling about how we're all born to find our unicorn soulmates.

That was harsh, but hopefully I've been equally harsh to every group, because too much of any of us is nightmarish.

I'm not so sure about the part about winning debates. Sometimes some things have to be stood up for, even at the cost of being seen as a fucking jerk. Of course, fighting with people simply because you CAN is useless -- it's better to be more open, accepting and humble towards others in a discussion. But sometimes some shit *needs* to be said even if it's gonna make the other person mope about it all day, and even if you look like an absolute asshole for saying it. 

The definition of those "things" varies from person to person. But I hope you get what I mean.


----------



## Zamyatin

Word Dispenser said:


> I'm an emotional thinking type, lol. :kitteh: Sometimes my emotions overrides my logic-- Maybe even a lot of times. Most times. I dunno. I don't condescend to say that I can accurately represent my personality on the best of days.
> 
> I think one of my favourite examples of ethics vs. logic would be Moose vs. Dean Winchester. On Supernatural.
> 
> I dunno if you've seen the show, but even though Moose is the ethical one, the one who is 'softer', in his own way, more likely to be given over to ethical judgements over logical ones, seen as the 'baby' of the brothers-- He's also the one who doesn't let his emotions get the better of him. He doesn't lose his cool. And I've rarely seen him actually cry.
> 
> Dean, on the other hand, as 'macho' as he is-- He's actually the one who loses his cool far more often, and makes impulsive, emotional decisions quite a lot of the time. And I've seen him cry at least 5x more often than his brother. He's still, without a doubt in _my _mind, at least, a _logical_ _type_... But, he's also _very _emotional. And probably unhealthy psychologically, insofar as he's depicted on the show.
> 
> So, Dean is an example of a logical type who is _also _emotional and reactive.
> 
> I think that we're gonna need a whole lot of convincing of the general public of typology, though, to drive that point home. That logical types aren't solely logical, and ethical types aren't solely ethical. For some reason, this is a really difficult thing for people to understand.


I've always thought that Dean's impulsiveness and tendency to react emotionally is not because he's emotionally imbalanced per se but because he's quite the SLE and he often fails to see the bigger impact of his decisions. So basically, he doesn't restrain his emotions if he doesn't see an immediate reason for why following them would be a bad idea, which not only causes problems but at times puts him in situations that are extremely emotionally taxing. Sam comes across as more level-headed because he's probably best typed as IEI and he tends to be far more cautious due to his Ni. They're both just about as mentally healthy as each other.

Still, I completely agree that Dean tends to get into trouble for chasing his feelings. In contrast, one of the things I've noticed observing the SEEs in my life is they rarely seem to get in trouble for making impulsive emotional decisions. Instead, when they get into trouble, it tends to be because they overestimate their logic. My girlfriend makes Fi judgments all the time (it's kind of cute, really) saying what she feels about something or grumbling about someone that annoys her. Despite the fact that she's always judging things using her ethics, that usually doesn't get her into trouble. When she gets into a problem situation, it's usually because she failed to adequately understand the situation and (incorrectly) thought her behavior was perfectly logical and the best way to go about whatever it was she decided to do. She overestimates her time or her ability to continue with an obligation or how good an opportunity actually is, and ends up stuck in situations that drain her or don't turn out the way she thought they would.

That's kind of the entire idea behind duality. Life challenges people in all ways, but we're only good at meeting life's challenges in some of those ways. And we tend to get into trouble when we're forced to deal with a challenge that hits us in our weak spots. While I don't think I completely agree with @Night Huntress when she says some things can't or shouldn't be quantified, the reason why logicians are bad at quantifying certain types of experience is because they lack the tools to truly understand those experiences. That's where people with different cognitive values are invaluable -- they understand things I may not and thus can address issues I would only be able to handle clumsily, if at all. Like Dean, I'm more likely to get into problems because I made a flash, ill-advised decision based on emotions. That's why ethics types are good for me to be around.


----------



## Ixim

Abraxas said:


> You guys are both making really good points and I like where this conversation ended up. It really cleared up the idea of "dual-seeking" to me. I'm still struggling with comprehending a lot of the implications of Model A Socionics. I mean, I understand the model itself, I get the gist of information metabolism, and I actually like the Socionics versions of the Jungian functions (Ni is subjective time, Te is impersonal efficiency, etc) as well, but it still taking me some time to predict where the model goes, e.g., what kinds of predictions it can make that line up with my intuitions about the world.
> 
> Specifically here, I just grasped dual-seeking in the context of a person who, as a response to pressure applied to their suggestive function, either fails to respond to it appropriately, or finds someone else who can do it for them, or at the very least assist them in doing it, and so naturally they admire such a person and might even find a successful romance with that person.
> 
> In all honesty, I don't generally find myself attracted to pushy people. It's not my thing at all. While I mention in my 80 questionnaire that I'm very acquiescing to other people's demands, and I take pride in my ability to shift perspectives in order to gratify myself through other means whenever I'm blocked by circumstances, the truth is, it still is a chore to do it. I'd still rather not have to do it. Ideally, I just get whatever it is that I want through minimal effort, and I don't have to change anything about my plans or my goals either.
> 
> But now, on the other hand, that's because I'm often the one being pushed. If instead, I had someone to do the pushing _for me_, that is to say, not pushing me, but pushing everything _else_ around me, _helping me_ to get whatever it is I want, then... I mean, I can't imagine someone I would love more in the world. Someone who sticks up for you and doesn't just defend you in a debate, but goes on the offensive and shuts down your opponent for you, knowing just what to say to take the wind out of their sails? Jesus christ that's like, literally a _fantasy_. Nobody would ever do that for me. Nobody... there's nobody like that in the world. It doesn't exist.
> 
> It would be like I'm the wizard, and I've found my tank to handle aggro for me. That's exactly what it is. Someone to fight for me, someone trained and skilled in war, who can handle all the mundane situations where physical prowess and strength is needed, so that I can sit back undisturbed and chant esoteric bullshit for 5 rounds until my weird alien ritual is complete and I bring down the wrath of the elder gods that fucking annihilates the whole opposing army with madness and poison.
> 
> Not to mention, being a strong, athletic person... I can't even imagine the sex. I'm sure it would be incredible.
> 
> Ugh, now I'm horny again.


I will just finish this off by asking you this:

When do you become aware of your dual? IRL. That's exactly when he/she/it will come as if materialised from thin air. But he didn't materialise from thin air because:

How do you search for your dual? Consciously or subconsciously?

Cheers!


----------



## Entropic

Abraxas said:


> Ugh, now I'm horny again.


lol, I like how you made yourself horny without inference from external influence. Unrelatedly related, but did you look into the romance styles?

ILIs are victim types:
Socionics - the16types.info - Socionics Romancing Styles




> Victims: EIE (ENFj), IEI (INFp), LIE (ENTj), ILI (INTp)
> 
> The Victim types, identified as such by Viktor Gulenko, are the four types with Ni in their ego. Despite the differences between these types in terms of temperament, base function, and quadra values, it seems that in the area of physical attraction, desire, and flirting, the Ego element Ni, coupled with their expectations of Se style behavior in intimate partners, is the most visible factor in a Victim's behavior.
> 
> Typical characteristics of the Victim romance style
> prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person
> not always confident about revealing that interest
> inclined to focus on whether or not the other person might reciprocate the interest
> inclined to question whether or not the other person's interest will remain constant with time
> preference for partners that provoke in the individual a certain sense of awe in terms of power, physical presence, and the like
> appreciation for the sense of power-play present when interacting with such partners, with acceptance of a slight sense of superiority on the part of the partner, without ever actually "submitting" to them
> this takes the form of the individual somewhat expecting the partner to be "mean" on occasion
> in the case of Victim males with female partners, this latter trait assumes a characteristic analogous to a "knight devoted to his princess"
> inclination to openly admit to a relationship having been ended by the partner rather than by the individual himself
> 
> This romance style is defined by focus on Ni which is dynamic, irrational, and introverted, with perceptions of inner imagery away from the present physical reality. This means that a Victim sees attraction between two individuals as a dynamic state, which he feels is completely natural. This accounts for a Victim's inclination to focus on the mutual attraction, or particularly the attraction felt by the other person, as to its longer-term perspectives and implications, as well as a certain expectation that the partner will continuously take action to confirm the attraction. Failure on the partner to do so results on the individual assuming that it's already changing. The individual counts on the partner to forcefully bring the individual "down to earth from his thoughts " and focus on the immediate physical reality, continuously.
> 
> Perception of other romance styles
> Victim: Victims tend to perceive other Victims as puzzling and inconstant, as if they were playing games or "push-pull" behavior, but also as exciting partners if a stage of "certainty" is reached.
> Aggressor: Victims tend to perceive Aggressors as pleasantly reassuring of their interest and prone to take the initiative in that area. They find Aggressor's sexual confidence attractive and reflecting positively on themselves.
> Caregiver: Victims tend to perceive Caregivers as comfortable and up to a point reassuring partners, but also somewhat boring, leading to a sense of stagnation. The Caregiver's inclination to treat them as somewhat helpless is perceived as slightly insulting.
> Infantile: Victims tend to perceive Childlike types as too goofy and expecting a kind of attention that the Victims find demanding; Victim women are prone to see Childlike men as irritating.


EDIT
I re-reading the final portion of what you wrote, I was reminded by this song lol:






Follow the bloodline throughout the past 
Seek and you will find a hidden ancestry 
At night the circle gathers 
When the world is shedding skin
The earth now stands to shatter
The ritual begins
let the ritual begin

A maelstrom of energy
Turns the air electric
Starting a synergy
The patterns all symmetric
Masks are covering their faces
Hiding the alteration
Shapeshifting in phases
Behold illumination

The silence screaming as light turns dark
Altering what's real
Awake they're dreaming
The lucid nightmares opening the gates
A light is gleaming, the blackened rain
Summoned forth this night
By the hybrid cult

Follow the bloodline throughout the past
Seek and you will find a hidden ancestry
At night the circle gathers
When the world is shedding skin
The earth now stands to shatter
Erupting from within

The silence screaming as light turns dark
Altering what's real
Awake they're dreaming
The lucid nightmares opening the gates
A light is gleaming, the blackened rain
Summoned forth this night
By the hybrid cult

Not entirely human
DNA strings anomalous
Blood of god and man
in synergy blasphemous

[Solo]

The silence screaming as light turns dark
Altering what's real
Awake they're dreaming
The lucid nightmares opening the gates
A light is gleaming, the blackened rain
Summoned forth this night
By the hybrid cult

(Yeah I love this band and their lyrics are so gamma NT.)


----------



## Abraxas

Ixim said:


> I will just finish this off by asking you this:
> 
> When do you become aware of your dual? IRL. That's exactly when he/she/it will come as if materialised from thin air. But he didn't materialise from thin air because:
> 
> How do you search for your dual? Consciously or subconsciously?
> 
> Cheers!


Never, I don't, and neither. I've never met anyone who like, really stands up for me in a discussion because they genuinely value my insight and my personality and value _me_ by extension. As soon as I start bringing up my esoteric bullshit ideas, people shoot me down and I shut up and just lose all interest in interacting with anyone present. I typically always have my ipad or laptop with me, and those are the times when I just shut them out without trying to seem as sensitive to that kind of disappointment as I actually am, and start reading something to take my mind off of what just happened because I don't like that feeling. Rejection sucks, especially when 99.9% of people reject you, all the time. The only exceptions to that rule being the one or two people who are my closest friends and I've known _forever_ and remain in constant contact with every day.

But I never forget when I'm rejected. From then, I note: "these people have no real depth and are not interested in exploring the possibilities of subjective perception with me. They're caught up in their extraverted personas, or they're just extraverted period, and couldn't give a shit about anything subjective." So I just move on and blacklist them from any such discussion topics, and whenever I see them bring up such discussions themselves, I privately mock them and get a sense of smug superiority watching them flounder about like fucking morons with not even the slightest clue how dangerously powerful the ideas they're poking at really are, insofar as they shape the fate of our species and every individual member of it.

I have never, and suspect I shall never ever met anyone who actually gives a shit what I have to say about those kinds of things beyond my value as intellectual entertainment for them, _something to "occupy their minds for 10 or 15 minutes while they're simply waiting to die" as Alan Moore puts it best._ Except on a website or a forum like this, where the subject matter is by it's very nature esoteric and pertaining to deeper subjective truths about reality that _demand_ acknowledgement and respect. At least here I get some appreciation, and mind you, whenever I log in, I check _every single thank you I get_ and even re-read the things that I wrote to fully understand what it was that person thanked my post for. I never forget that either. I remember when people appreciate me, because it means a lot to me.

But eh, I don't really come here to date or looking for a partner either, even though I have that listed in my profile under my interests. I guess it's more like, if it happens it happens, but I suspect it won't and I don't hold out any hope for it either.

Whatever. To be honest, I suddenly don't really want to talk about this anymore. I'm sorry. It's kind of a sore spot.


----------



## Abraxas

@Entropic

Yeah, that's pretty much my romance style to a T. Perfectly described the three relationships I've had in my life. Each one turned out the same way, started on the same terms, had the same kind of dynamic described in that passage you quoted.

Good song, btw.


----------



## Entropic

Abraxas said:


> @Entropic
> 
> Yeah, that's pretty much my romance style to a T. Perfectly described the three relationships I've had in my life. Each one turned out the same way, started on the same terms, had the same kind of dynamic described in that passage you quoted.
> 
> Good song, btw.


I know you've gotten into metal. I really recommend exploring the band, as they got that progressive streak that I think you'll appreciate. Also, their lyrics verge all over the spectrum. Latest album is about transhumanity. 



> But eh, I don't really come here to date or looking for a partner either, even though I have that listed in my profile under my interests. I guess it's more like, if it happens it happens, but I suspect it won't and I don't hold out any hope for it either.


lol, I didn't either. When I came here I had left a LDR some years earlier and I was like NEVER LDR AGAIN. Yeah, that worked out well on both accounts...

(Still love you though <_< @night huntress.)


----------



## Ixim

Abraxas said:


> Never, I don't, and neither. I've never met anyone who like, really stands up for me in a discussion because they genuinely value my insight and my personality and value _me_ by extension. As soon as I start bringing up my esoteric bullshit ideas, people shoot me down and I shut up and just lose all interest in interacting with anyone present. I typically always have my ipad or laptop with me, and those are the times when I just shut them out without trying to seem as sensitive to that kind of disappointment as I actually am, and start reading something to take my mind off of what just happened because I don't like that feeling. Rejection sucks, especially when 99.9% of people reject you, all the time. The only exceptions to that rule being the one or two people who are my closest friends and I've known _forever_ and remain in constant contact with every day.
> 
> But I never forget when I'm rejected. From then, I note: "these people have no real depth and are not interested in exploring the possibilities of subjective perception with me. They're caught up in their extraverted personas, or they're just extraverted period, and couldn't give a shit about anything subjective." So I just move on and blacklist them from any such discussion topics, and whenever I see them bring up such discussions themselves, I privately mock them and get a sense of smug superiority watching them flounder about like fucking morons with not even the slightest clue how dangerously powerful the ideas they're poking at really are, insofar as they shape the fate of our species and every individual member of it.
> 
> I have never, and suspect I shall never ever met anyone who actually gives a shit what I have to say about those kinds of things beyond my value as intellectual entertainment for them, _something to "occupy their minds for 10 or 15 minutes while they're simply waiting to die" as Alan Moore puts it best._ Except on a website or a forum like this, where the subject matter is by it's very nature esoteric and pertaining to deeper subjective truths about reality that _demand_ acknowledgement and respect. At least here I get some appreciation, and mind you, whenever I log in, I check _every single thank you I get_ and even re-read the things that I wrote to fully understand what it was that person thanked my post for. I never forget that either. I remember when people appreciate me, because it means a lot to me.
> 
> But eh, I don't really come here to date or looking for a partner either, even though I have that listed in my profile under my interests. I guess it's more like, if it happens it happens, but I suspect it won't and I don't hold out any hope for it either.
> 
> Whatever. To be honest, I suddenly don't really want to talk about this anymore. I'm sorry. It's kind of a sore spot.


I value your sentiments but!

When you talk about "esoteric crap" and they overrule you, which kind of person would you like to pop out? Perhaps a person that will lead the talk in that direction? Even against the wishes of the group by emotionally persuading them? A person that would give YOU the spotlight? ...

...Isn't that the very definition of an SEE?

See? You ARE looking for one! And subconsciously of course(unless you have conscious access to Se / Fi ).

...moving on!


----------



## Zamyatin

Ixim said:


> But acting like you do will produce that person.
> 
> Just saying.


Believe it or not, people actually do have other goals besides just looking for some hypothesized psychological soulmate a la Plato's Androgene. These goals involve some pretty important things like keeping a job, which almost always involves getting along with many people with different values, getting along with family or relatives, which to most people is very important, and making important life decisions. Just because someone's type is supposedly bad at socializing or devalues Fe or handles rational decision making poorly doesn't mean they should just give up on those things, or just leave them for their "dual" to handle.

Playing up the worst aspects of one's type is not going to attract some perfect soulmate. At most, it's going to attract someone just as unhealthy as the characteristics you're choosing to display. Entering a romantic relationship does not fix a person. Finding a dual is not cognitive psychology's version of salvation. Your dual will not save you from yourself.


----------



## Abraxas

Zamyatin said:


> Believe it or not, people actually do have other goals besides just looking for some hypothesized psychological soulmate a la Plato's Androgene. These goals involve some pretty important things like keeping a job, which almost always involves getting along with many people with different values, getting along with family or relatives, which to most people is very important, and making important life decisions. Just because someone's type is supposedly bad at socializing or devalues Fe or handles rational decision making poorly doesn't mean they should just give up on those things, or just leave them for their "dual" to handle.
> 
> Playing up the worst aspects of one's type is not going to attract some perfect soulmate. At most, it's going to attract someone just as unhealthy as the characteristics you're choosing to display. Entering a romantic relationship does not fix a person. Finding a dual is not cognitive psychology's version of salvation. Your dual will not save you from yourself.


I get what he's saying though.

I'm not saying it's a bowl full of cherries. Obviously I'd be naive to think something exists for free like that, but I also think it's a little cliche to say "nobody can save you from yourself." What if someone can? I mean, it's kind of a trope to say things like that these days, usually coming from introverts who have a hard time reaching out and connecting, so they want to do everything themselves. Everyone who says things like that tries to sound practical and we interpret that as being "reasonable", but in reality, it seems to me that the exact opposite is true - that being self-sufficient is no longer necessary in our society, because of how complex and internecine it has become.

Ironically, at least in my opinion, extreme specialization is what breeds more efficiency in the long run, as long as we can cooperate as a species. It's like, we don't all need to learn how to fix cars, bake cakes, fly airplanes, cure diseases, and build rocket ships. We have specific people who excel at specific things and they pick up the slack where everyone else is totally helpless. Without them, we'd be fucked. It's the fact that we all have something to contribute that we can develop into a _trade_ that keeps everything fair and balanced imo.

So there are two sides to this issue, and I'm actually leaning toward the side that says we should all just focus on what we're good at and learn to rely on other people more to pick up the slack for us, and instead of trying to "do it all ourselves" we should instead see it as a transaction, and focus on improving our creative products so that they compensate for our weaknesses and pay for them at a fair price. Like, the more of a sloth and a shitty person I am at Se or Si, the better I need to be at Ni and Te to make up for it so that it evens out. I can still work on Si or Se to maintain a bare minimum so that I don't _die_, but I don't really need to be focusing on developing those aspects of my identity, because nobody should try to be a jack-of-all-trades in the modern world. We don't need renaissance men.

At least, that's how I like to think of intertype dynamics with Socionics operating, which is actually how society tends to operate in reality.


----------



## Zamyatin

Abraxas said:


> I get what he's saying though.
> 
> I'm not saying it's a bowl full of cherries. Obviously I'd be naive to think something exists for free like that, but I also think it's a little cliche to say "nobody can save you from yourself." What if someone can? I mean, it's kind of a trope to say things like that these days, usually coming from introverts who have a hard time reaching out and connecting, so they want to do everything themselves. Everyone who says things like that tries to sound practical and we interpret that as being "reasonable", but in reality, it seems to me that the exact opposite is true - that being self-sufficient is no longer necessary in our society, because of how complex and internecine it has become.
> 
> Ironically, at least in my opinion, extreme specialization is what breeds more efficiency in the long run, as long as we can cooperate as a species. It's like, we don't all need to learn how to fix cars, bake cakes, fly airplanes, cure diseases, and build rocket ships. We have specific people who excel at specific things and they pick up the slack where everyone else is totally helpless. Without them, we'd be fucked. It's the fact that we all have something to contribute that we can develop into a _trade_ that keeps everything fair and balanced imo.
> 
> So there are two sides to this issue, and I'm actually leaning toward the side that says we should all just focus on what we're good at and learn to rely on other people more to pick up the slack for us, and instead of trying to "do it all ourselves" we should instead see it as a transaction, and focus on improving our creative products so that they compensate for our weaknesses and pay for them at a fair price. Like, the more of a sloth and a shitty person I am at Se or Si, the better I need to be at Ni and Te to make up for it so that it evens out. I can still work on Si or Se to maintain a bare minimum so that I don't _die_, but I don't really need to be focusing on developing those aspects of my identity, because nobody should try to be a jack-of-all-trades in the modern world. We don't need renaissance men.
> 
> At least, that's how I like to think of intertype dynamics with Socionics operating, which is actually how society tends to operate in reality.


In theory that's great. But that's not how life works.

If I want to get a promotion at work, I'm going to have to push for it myself. I can't go to my boss and say "Hey, I deserve a promotion. Now here's my phone, talk to my girlfriend so she can Se you into giving me what I deserve." If I'm negotiating a business deal I can't be a quiet boring lump on a log just because the rest of the group values Fe. 

There's something to be said for sticking to what you're good at. But that's not always possible, and feigning helplessness only hurts yourself. After all, the first dimension of every IM is experience. While I may never be able to sway a crowd with my rhetoric like an EIE that doesn't mean I'm doomed in every public speaking situation, and while I may never have the skill an SEE has with Se that doesn't mean I can't learn to effectively assert myself when needed.

You're not really describing specialization. You're describing surrender and cognitive fatalism.


----------



## Abraxas

Zamyatin said:


> In theory that's great. But that's not how life works.
> 
> If I want to get a promotion at work, I'm going to have to push for it myself. I can't go to my boss and say "Hey, I deserve a promotion. Now here's my phone, talk to my girlfriend so she can Se you into giving me what I deserve." If I'm negotiating a business deal I can't be a quiet boring lump on a log just because the rest of the group values Fe.
> 
> There's something to be said for sticking to what you're good at. But that's not always possible, and feigning helplessness only hurts yourself. After all, the first dimension of every IM is experience. While I may never be able to sway a crowd with my rhetoric like an EIE that doesn't mean I'm doomed in every public speaking situation, and while I may never have the skill an SEE has with Se that doesn't mean I can't learn to effectively assert myself when needed.
> 
> You're not really describing specialization. You're describing surrender and cognitive fatalism.



*Reality:*

If your car breaks down and you're not a mechanic, you take your car to a mechanic, or you become a mechanic.

I'm not a mechanic and I don't need to be a mechanic, so I take my car to a mechanic.

*Q.E.D.*


That's not a theory, that's a _thing I have done before._ And it's a thing _most people have done before._

That's as REAL as it gets, buddy. And what I'm saying is that, in modern society, people's strengths usually have a career available for them.

_To use your very own example PROPERLY,_ it would be more like if, when the time came for me to get that promotion, an agency existed _specifically for that purpose_ that I could call up. I would hire an agent to come out and represent me to my boss and get my promotion for me, and the boss and everyone else understood that this is the appropriate way to get promoted - _*very much like how you get a lawyer to represent you in court and you don't defend yourself because you're not skilled at doing so.*_

I love how you're probably hung up on "there aren't any agencies like that around/that's not how getting a promotion works" instead of seeing the FUTURE, or the ALTERNATIVE where there ARE agencies like that around/that's how getting a promotion does work. Man, engage your Ni a little bit dude. Meet me halfway here at least and don't be so disrespectful. It's obnoxious having to write up long expositions like this just to explain a mundane and obvious point of fact.

In fact, shit if I was ambitious enough, I'd start an agency like that myself. Any ILEs or SEEs around? You can have this one for free.

But hey, let's not forget that we're not even talking about getting promotions or building rocket ships. Christ, we're talking about getting LAID and finding a romantic partner.

I just wish there was an agency for THAT.

Oh... wait, there is.


----------



## Zamyatin

Abraxas said:


> I love how you're probably hung up on "there aren't any agencies like that around/that's not how getting a promotion works" instead of seeing the FUTURE, or the ALTERNATIVE where there ARE agencies like that around/that's how getting a promotion does work. Man, engage your Ni a little bit dude. Meet me halfway here at least and don't be so disrespectful. It's obnoxious having to write up long expositions like this just to explain a mundane and obvious point of fact.
> 
> In fact, shit if I was ambitious enough, I'd start an agency like that myself. Any ILEs or SEEs around? You can have this one for free.
> 
> But hey, let's not forget that we're not even talking about getting promotions or building rocket ships. Christ, we're talking about getting LAID and finding a romantic partner.
> 
> I just wish there was an agency for THAT.
> 
> Oh... wait, there is.


In the future, there will probably be diet pills that actually work. Today, however, I'm still going to watch my diet so I don't gain weight, because I'm _still stuck in the present_. This has nothing to do with using my Ni, lol. It's just a fact. If I say "well someday I'll be able to eat doughnuts and pizza all day and never gain weight, so today I'm going to eat doughnuts and pizza all day" I'll be fat within a couple of months and I will be for the 10 years or so it'll take for that pill to be designed. That's not Ni. That's just recognizing reality for what it is.

Try to see my perspective. From where I'm sitting, this doesn't sound like a real belief of yours, because I doubt you're really that impractical. Instead, it sounds like you're making an ideological rejection of a handful of things society expects you to do because they make you uncomfortable, and you're using your cognitive type as both excuse and justification. You've probably had a lot of friends/parents tell you in the past "hey you need to assert yourself more". And you always felt frustrated by that because you're not good at that and you don't enjoy that. Then you discovered Socionics, and the ILI profile, and Se suggestive, and the entire concept of duality which says one day you'll attract a romantic partner that is good at those things you're not. And you interpreted that as "wow, so I guess I have no reason to even try to do things I'm not good at, so I shouldn't try even when there's no alternative."

That's not reasoning, man. That's not seeing the future. It makes no kind of sense whatsoever. If you want to make an agency that asks the bosses of its clients for promotions, go for it. I doubt it'll work because corporate culture would fully reject that because of expectations from employees, but maybe I'm wrong. I doubt it, but it's always a possibility. That doesn't change the fact that today, before such an agency exists, you're only sacrificing your career potential by indulging the ILI lethargy rather than challenging it and taking steps to accomplish your long-term goals.


----------



## Abraxas

Zamyatin said:


> In the future, there will probably be diet pills that actually work. Today, however, I'm still going to watch my diet so I don't gain weight, because I'm _still stuck in the present_. This has nothing to do with using my Ni, lol. It's just a fact. If I say "well someday I'll be able to eat doughnuts and pizza all day and never gain weight, so today I'm going to eat doughnuts and pizza all day" I'll be fat within a couple of months and I will be for the 10 years or so it'll take for that pill to be designed. That's not Ni. That's just recognizing reality for what it is.
> 
> Try to see my perspective. From where I'm sitting, this doesn't sound like a real belief of yours, because I doubt you're really that impractical. Instead, it sounds like you're making an ideological rejection of a handful of things society expects you to do because they make you uncomfortable, and you're using your cognitive type as both excuse and justification. You've probably had a lot of friends/parents tell you in the past "hey you need to assert yourself more". And you always felt frustrated by that because you're not good at that and you don't enjoy that. Then you discovered Socionics, and the ILI profile, and Se suggestive, and the entire concept of duality which says one day you'll attract a romantic partner that is good at those things you're not. And you interpreted that as "wow, so I guess I have no reason to even try to do things I'm not good at, so I shouldn't try even when there's no alternative."
> 
> That's not reasoning, man. That's not seeing the future. It makes no kind of sense whatsoever. If you want to make an agency that asks the bosses of its clients for promotions, go for it. I doubt it'll work because corporate culture would fully reject that because of expectations from employees, but maybe I'm wrong. I doubt it, but it's always a possibility. That doesn't change the fact that today, before such an agency exists, you're only sacrificing your career potential by indulging the ILI lethargy rather than challenging it and taking steps to accomplish your long-term goals.


This has to be the most elaborate strawman I've ever had someone put the effort into composing in a discussion with me on this website. But thank you for actually taking the time to lay out exactly what your thinking is for me, so at least now I understand exactly what's going wrong with it.



Zamyatin said:


> If I say "well someday I'll be able to eat doughnuts and pizza all day and never gain weight, so today I'm going to eat doughnuts and pizza all day."


Again, you continue to make up the most shit-awful reasoning and apply it to what I said, as if my reasoning was shit-awful and comparable to your example. It's really fucking rude and condescending, so stop fucking doing it please if you want to continue this discussion with me. I don't appreciate being pissed on by your sense of smug intellectualism.



Zamyatin said:


> Try to see my perspective. From where I'm sitting, this doesn't sound like a real belief of yours, because I doubt you're really that impractical. Instead, it sounds like you're making an ideological rejection of a handful of things society expects you to do because they make you uncomfortable, and you're using your cognitive type as both excuse and justification. You've probably had a lot of friends/parents tell you in the past "hey you need to assert yourself more". And you always felt frustrated by that because you're not good at that and you don't enjoy that. Then you discovered Socionics, and the ILI profile, and Se suggestive, and the entire concept of duality which says one day you'll attract a romantic partner that is good at those things you're not. And you interpreted that as "wow, so I guess I have no reason to even try to do things I'm not good at, so I shouldn't try even when there's no alternative."
> 
> That's not reasoning, man. That's not seeing the future. It makes no kind of sense whatsoever. If you want to make an agency that asks the bosses of its clients for promotions, go for it. I doubt it'll work because corporate culture would fully reject that because of expectations from employees, but maybe I'm wrong. I doubt it, but it's always a possibility. That doesn't change the fact that today, before such an agency exists, you're only sacrificing your career potential by indulging the ILI lethargy rather than challenging it and taking steps to accomplish your long-term goals.


Here's reality, from where I'm sitting. Not my "perspective", but how it really is.

I don't _believe_ people have specialities, I _know_ it. And I don't _believe_ people rely on the specialties of other people at the expense of developing those specialties themselves, again, I _know_ it. It's not a theory, it's a _fact_ that nobody can do everything for themselves, and needs to learn how to accept their reliance upon other people to help them carry their burdens in life. Nobody is self-sufficient. _Nobody_, and that includes you.

It sounds to me like you have a personal issue here with people who do what you're accusing me of doing (i.e., using socionics as some kind of "excuse" to hide from reality.) But here's the facts: I'm not really doing any of that shit you're throwing my way. That's all on you, buddy. That's some shit you have stewing inside you that you need to deal with on your own instead of projecting it on me and trying to take it out on me by crucifying me and making me an example. I'm innocent here, and I don't deserve any of this crap I'm getting from you right now. Everything I've said so far in this discussion is totally logical, and insightful, and _true_. And more importantly, _applicable_ to the discussion. What you're on is a crusade, and you're bringing it into this discussion and trying to make it into something it isn't and never was about.

So don't try to tell me about life, or about how to be successful. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and that's the drum I've been beating. You found a way that works for you, well good for you. And here's where I'm going to do what I've been asking you to do now, by meeting you halfway.

Here's what you're saying, and I agree with it:

"If my car breaks down and I need a mechanic to fix it, and there are no mechanics around, then I better learn how to be a mechanic if I want my car to start."

Yeah, no shit. I totally get that. Now hopefully we're on the same page here? I _get_ that. I'm not an idiot man.

I'm simply positing the potential that "a mechanic might exist, and I can go find one instead of becoming one, if I choose to go that route."

That's it. That's what "dual-seeking" is all about, _Q.E.D._


----------



## Strife

I think its best to work on strong functions to 'skirt around' the weaker functions as much as possible to reduce strain on the psyche, however the idea of relying on someone 'save you' is a dangerous one. There's no way to circumvent self-sufficiency. Dual seeking as it can be applied to reality is more so about communication than necessarily saying anything about the aptitude of another to fix your problems. Also, it's more accurate to say that nobody is completely self-sufficient. Yes, we rely on people to different extents but no one who completely relies on another can really be called functional. I, at least, personally have never witnessed somebody with that sort of mentality be successful, self-actualized, or otherwise content with their living situations. 

People do end up helping each other and that's great. My problem with this mentality is the 'expectation' for this to happen. Sometimes, people just won't be able to - and if you have neglected dealing with certain aspects of reality, then what happens? Who bails you out then? Moreover, why completely give the reigns to someone else? Decisions you make are fundamentally yours and should be treated that way, regardless of anyone else's aptitude to help. And, just to call out the obvious, this is just a theory. It doesn't translate directly into real life. Treating it like it is will lead you to a very rude awakening.


----------



## Vermillion

@_Zamyatin_

I get where you're coming from, and I agree with you. I also get where @_Abraxas_ is coming from, and I agree with him too. I think there's a bit of dissonance between both your points, which is to say, the two of you advocate two things that are both acceptable on their own but turn out to be kinda... going past each other. Like failing to counter each other right on the mark.

And I'll explain what _I_ understood to be Abraxas's point, because it seems consensus is favoring you atm and not him, so I'd like to even that out.

I don't think what he's describing is surrender or being fatalistic. I think he's simply talking about an ideal future, which may or may not exist, but there's absolutely no harm in fantasizing about it. It doesn't automatically imply he doesn't understand the realities of his situation and the different qualities he needs to develop in order to be successful on his own. Does it help to have an awesome dual partner who understands you and complements you? Absolutely. But does _wanting_ that mean you advocate being dependent and only partly functional without someone's assistance? Not at all.

I had a disastrous year in school. I had bad emotional and anxiety-related issues that I don't want to describe. I ended the year with _stellar_ academic results, because I had to work hard even though it was really painful. I understand the importance and value of hard work so so much. But I had a lot of emotional support towards the end, from parents, teachers, and my partner. Was I going to deny myself the support; deny myself people making it easier for me, just because I need to be "self-sufficient"? I needed that help, and I got so much better because of it. I'm not going to refuse help when it's staring me in the face and offering itself to me, because I'm scared of admitting I'm dependent. We ALL need people sometimes, and that's completely ok. It doesn't reduce our worth or make us less of a person. Sometimes we gotta depend on others to prop us up. That's fine. And when they are willingly offering support, why refuse it, unless it's some pride issue? 

If the only person left to do the task is yourself, you gotta step up to the occasion and do it. You have to fend for yourself, and you shouldn't rely on the _hope_ of someone taking care of things for you. But it would be cool to have help. It would be cool if someone helped you and made things easier, simply because they can and they want to. It might even accelerate our growth and learning and make it more comfortable for us. Someone isn't inherently weaker because they pick that option when it presents itself to them. 

That's how I see his point... he thinks it would be awesome to have a partner who complements you so well and is able to fill in for you. I don't think he's advocating waiting for that partner and making yourself useless in the interim. People have invented concepts like "soulmates" and "other half" and stuff like that for a reason... they're not wrong. Meeting someone who helps you fix yourself isn't something horrible and weak. It's just an awesome, lucky twist of fate. And anyway the world is full of people looking for some love... I don't see why we should deny ourselves that on purpose to make ourselves somehow more gritty and practical. We can be practical enough while still having hopes.

I hope this smooths out some of the tension and brings balance to both sides of the argument, and disclaimer for Abraxas: this post is not with the intention of patronizing or belittling you, because I can see you're upset.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Zamyatin said:


> In the future, there will probably be diet pills that actually work.


There May Soon Be a Diet Pill to Trick Your Body Into Losing Weight


----------



## Vermillion

On another note, nothing's worse than penta stealers. FUCKING PENTA STEALERS. I GOT ONLY 2 WITH MY MAIN AND YOU NEED TO STEAL MY THIRD AT 100 HP, YEAH. Totally!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fuck you so much*.

*I don't even care, I'm counting this as a penta too.


----------



## Abraxas

@Night Huntress

You put that way better than me. That's exactly what I was trying to say, and for some reason it didn't come out nearly as well as when you say it. But yeah, you absolutely nailed it.

My attempt to meet @Zamyatin halfway was when I admitted that, in the absence of someone who can help you out, you do things yourself. Which is, of course, common sense. You can't expect the world to throw you a bone, you need to get the ball rolling in the meantime while holding out hope for help. But, in my opinion, it's really unrealistic to just assume that there's nobody out there willing or capable of helping you with most things in life, and usually it's the case that people who say things like that are just projecting the disappointing that they've met with in the past and being fatalistic about finding someone like that. In reality, you are likely surrounded by people who would probably be more than willing to help you in any way they can if you can do the same for them. In my experience, _most people_ are actually good people, and it's just underage edgy kids who think that it's cool to be misogynistic and confuse that for being wise or mature. 

Let's be real man, shit I know how that attitude feels because look at the way this whole thing started before @Ixim replied to what I said in the beginning, about how I'd basically given up hope in finding a dual, and how I didn't even want to talk about those feelings because it's hard for me to do so. Even though I express that kind of bitter emotion sometimes, the truth is, deep down inside, of course I know there's still hope. And I do put myself out there and keep rolling the dice, because eventually they'll turn up in my favor, it just takes determination and perseverance. I know that. It's just... fucking hard man. It feels better to vent and bitch about it a little bit sometimes though, and I let that misogynistic cynic in me have a go.

It almost seems easier to just say, "I don't really need anyone to help me carry the weight of my life. I'm independent and self-sufficient and that's how everyone ought to be." But I can't anymore. Believe me, I used to say shit like that, but now I can't say that because I know it's not really true. As a species we _cannot survive_ unless we cooperate toward common goals and co-exist with one another, which is a very extraverted thing to say, but nevertheless it's true and I've had to accept it. We cannot all just be perfect little introverts and mind our own business and look after ourselves and be fortresses of self-efficiency. Not as nations, not as companies, and not as individuals. It's not even a good idea, even in theory. It's just a shitty way to live in general. And as much as it frustrates introverts (even me) to admit that they are weak and incomplete as individuals and necessarily require their membership within the group to survive, that's just the way life is.

I mean, of course it is folly to expect people to do everything for you. My irritation in this discussion was because I went so far out of my way to use words like "fair trade" and so forth to try and make it completely apparent that I was talking about having something to offer to make up for what you suck at. But it is not folly to expect my boss _not to fire me_ when I do a fucking amazing job, and he cannot afford to lay me off, because he cannot find anyone to replace me, despite whatever minor flaws I may have, maybe even major flaws. That's what I mean by "fair trade". And that's realistic, it's called "making a rational choice." Hell, it's literally the basis of economics. Ceteris paribus. "All else being equal."

In fact, I've been in that exact situation for ten years at my current job, where my boss and I don't at all get along, but he knows he can't fire me because I do a damn good job, I'm never late, I never get sick, I always come in when he needs me to, and I work ten times harder than anyone else in the company, AND he has nobody to replace me. The value of my labor far exceeds his disapproval of my character. He may hate my guts even, but he knows how badly it would hurt the business if he fired me over some bullshit, and for ten years that's how it's been. At company outings he's actually defended me in front of other employees who also dislike me, pointing out how they slack off and I don't. He's even promoted me and given me plenty of raises because he doesn't want me to ever quit, but if him and me met on the street, we'd barely even nod at each other because we don't get along _at all._

That's the essence of the fair trade I'm talking about. You make yourself an indispensable asset to someone, and then it doesn't matter if you have some shitty weakness as long as it balances out in _everyone's mutual favor._ "I scratch your back, you scratch mine." The relationship needs to be _symbiotic_, and if it's not, well then no shit it doesn't make any sense and isn't realistic. Like, _no shit sherlock._ Parasitic relationships are destructive to _both parties_, because they are not sustainable in the long-term.

The same is true of every single human interaction, _especially_ romantic ones. In a long-term relationship _you need to learn how to make compromises and look at the bigger picture of who a person is overall_. You do that, and then you make the decision, "is the bad worth the good? Does it even out somehow and turn up more positive than negative?" If yes, then you've found someone. Maybe not the most ideal partner, but let's be realistic about it right? They're "good enough."

And by the way, as a final note before I'm done with this discussion, to everyone who reads my posts, I don't know how I come off age-wise, but I'm not just some fucking kid speculating about the shit I say when we're talking about real life. I'm 32 and I've been through a lot of bullshit already. I not some teenager who thinks he's hot shit and has all the answers. I'm not even very self-aware for my age, but I do have about ten years more life experience than your average user on this website. That might be something to take into consideration whenever I have something to say. If it comes across as unwise, or uninformed, maybe pause for a moment and consider that the problem is just in the delivery, not the content. I don't always phrase things for the best, but that's a far cry from just making shit up.


----------



## Entropic

@Abraxas there's no need to justify anything. Whatever happened happened in the past and I'd just leave it there.


----------



## Ixim

BLERGH!

Time to move to another hangout! <3

Sorry for 1 year troll. Deeply sorry.


----------



## Vermillion

Why do we always type our parents and relatives as SJs who have Enneatypes 1/2/6? Like... doesn't anyone notice something is seriously fishy in that? How do we feel _so comfortable_ in assuming the generation that came before us is absolutely devoid of diversity? I mean... I bet their cognitive types were just as random in distribution as ours are, seeing as cognitive type hasn't been proven to be genetic yet. So if a major part of the generation comprises of parents or at least adults who are related to some child of some sort, how is it possible for so many SJ 1/2/6s to exist?

The way I see it, a lot of parents and responsible adults have several SJ-ish protective, pragmatic and nurturing qualities that they necessarily have adopted in front of their children, to take care of them. It doesn't necessarily denote that they value those qualities and feel comfortable in that mask.

Can we all collectively rethink our relatives' types please


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Night Huntress said:


> Why do we always type our parents and relatives as SJs who have Enneatypes 1/2/6? Like... doesn't anyone notice something is seriously fishy in that? How do we feel _so comfortable_ in assuming the generation that came before us is absolutely devoid of diversity? I mean... I bet their cognitive types were just as random in distribution as ours are, seeing as cognitive type hasn't been proven to be genetic yet. So if a major part of the generation comprises of parents or at least adults who are related to some child of some sort, how is it possible for so many SJ 1/2/6s to exist?
> 
> The way I see it, a lot of parents and responsible adults have several SJ-ish protective, pragmatic and nurturing qualities that they necessarily have adopted in front of their children, to take care of them. It doesn't necessarily denote that they value those qualities and feel comfortable in that mask.
> 
> Can we all collectively rethink our relatives' types please


I also suspect that the SJ mask becomes less evident when one is older, as your parents don't need to protect you that much later. My mom's protective side is still clear but she has slowly let go of it, and I still think that she's an EII. My dad is a mystery as I barely know him, but from what I've seen and heard as second hand info, some LXE type is likely, leaning more LIE from what I know. It's true too that the types of my relatives are random, ranging from alpha to delta, and seems more deltaish as a whole.


----------



## To_august

Night Huntress said:


> Why do we always type our parents and relatives as SJs who have Enneatypes 1/2/6? Like... doesn't anyone notice something is seriously fishy in that? How do we feel _so comfortable_ in assuming the generation that came before us is absolutely devoid of diversity? I mean... I bet their cognitive types were just as random in distribution as ours are, seeing as cognitive type hasn't been proven to be genetic yet. So if a major part of the generation comprises of parents or at least adults who are related to some child of some sort, how is it possible for so many SJ 1/2/6s to exist?
> 
> The way I see it, a lot of parents and responsible adults have several SJ-ish protective, pragmatic and nurturing qualities that they necessarily have adopted in front of their children, to take care of them. It doesn't necessarily denote that they value those qualities and feel comfortable in that mask.
> 
> Can we all collectively rethink our relatives' types please


This^
I'm so sick of hearing this whining: "Oh, my parents are so oppressive and limited SJs. They are so dull. Don't understand how speshul I am. Blah-blah-blah." Ugh.

I think my father is Beta ST. We're quasi-identicals most probably, no wonder people always perceived me as being "daddy's girl" and commented on how similar we are in behaviour.

My mom behaviourally is typical Alpha SF - caring, nurturing, fun, creative. Cognitively though, when I remove her attitude towards me from the focus and observe her interaction with others, she's totally Fi ego type.

The only real SJ among my relatives is grandma, who is LSE.


----------



## Entropic

To_august said:


> This^
> I'm so sick of hearing this whining: "Oh, my parents are so oppressive and limited SJs. They are so dull. Don't understand how speshul I am. Blah-blah-blah." Ugh.
> 
> I think my father is Beta ST. We're quasi-identicals most probably, *no wonder people always perceived me as being "daddy's girl" and commented on how similar we are in behaviour.*
> 
> My mom behaviourally is typical Alpha SF - caring, nurturing, fun, creative. Cognitively though, when I remove her attitude towards me from the focus and observe her interaction with others, she's totally Fi ego type.
> 
> The only real SJ among my relatives is grandma, who is LSE.


Yeah, my dad's my quasi too and I think at first glance, we can probably seem very similar. Both of us very inert, loner-esque, don't know what to say to others and how to instigate reaction, shitty as fuck detail memory too. The quasi description of introverts is quite spot on, as both of us try to cover psychological distance but none of us know how to do that since we don't have anything in common that can create such a bridge for us. 

I never associated or typed them based on stereotypes though, so I never thought that was a thing honestly. I mean, I just assumed everyone has a brain and can see that parent != SJ. The only one who really fits the stereotype is my grandmother who is a 2w3 ESE lol. She's one of those people you can read a random type profile of any of those types and go, yup, that's her, instantly. She's extremely stereotype in this regard it's not even funny. 

Dad is likely an LII 9w1. My SLE cousin purposefully tries to bring out Fe in him by being mean to him and making him worry about me for example. I guess that's one aspect of supervision in how the supervisor can put pressure on the supervisee like that. 

Stepmom is an LSE. Never figured out her enneagram. 

My entire family on my dad's side is very Ne-Si though, as a whole. I do think this is because people tend to want to socialize with people who they think they got a beneficial IME from, obviously, so over very large generations, you'll see that an Ne type is going to be more likely to marry people from their own quadra or neighboring quadras so over time that entire side of the family is going to become very centric around those values. 

I think even entire family sides can develop this way, even though the type distribution of children seems mostly random. Looking at my mother's side for example, it's more Se heavy but only up to a point. I got two aunts, so one aunt is an ESI I think, and she's married to an SLE. They have two children (my cousins), one being aforementioned SLE and she has a bigger sister who is a delta NF I think, likely an IEE but not of the more zany kind which is why I had issues typing her. Fun fact: but they clashed a lot over everything when they still lived at home. 

Her husband is an SLI I think. We get along pretty well, got very similar values as a whole and think very similar. Easier to bridge contact with him compared to dad. We also see how the home environments look very different here too. Delta cousin + husband have a very "homely" lifestyle. A lot of focus on comfort and strong family values. They shy away from force and forceful interactions. Yelling is for example unheard of, and they are raising their children in a very "non-violent" focused kind of way. People should be gentle and nice to each other, and respectful of differences. 

Compare to my likely EIE uncle (funnily SLE cousin argues a lot over immigration with him, as he's joined the anti-immigration bandwagon) who is raising his children in a very exaggerated stereotype beta manner. The boys should be macho and the girls coquette-ish. Goes extremely counter to the delta side where everyone should harbor their own innate uniqueness. None of them care much for gender identity in that sense, but the outwards presentation of gender makes a big difference between the two where my uncle cares a lot for external presentation which goes well with Fe blocked with Ni, recognizing archetypal concepts and attributing those collective value, whereas my IEE cousin shies away from that. She cares more for the individual and individual potential so people can develop into whoever they want to be. Great example of the differences in aristocracy.

Not sure about my uncle's wife's type. Another fun fact is that my dad think my uncle is one of the most hospitable and nicest people around and they really like each other even though they pretty much lost contact when my family lost a lot of contact with my mom's side in general. 

Then there's other aunt and her husband. They are an SEI-ESE couple. Extremely focused on being homely, creating pleasant atmospheres. Very hospitable but oh so impractical, lol. The ESE once posted a status on his Facebook complaining about the snow this winter and how his back hurts from all the shoveling and someone on his wall, I bet that person is a Te type, suggested that he'd buy one of those machines that shovels for you and he refused because of masculine pride or whatever. He's nearing 70 so it made no sense to me whatsoever. Compared to my dad who never took that kind of pride in using support like that. If anything he seems happy due to the comfort it brings, due to lack of exertion involved. 

Another interesting way to observe quadra differences was when this SEI aunt with my ESI aunt would plan family vacations together, which also involved myself and my family. What happens is that the alpha side tends to want to go to typical tourist resorts. The ESE husband wants to go to big, popular resorts known for their comfort and sun with close access to a good place to eat out near the beach. That's pretty much all he cares for. He could otherwise just lie on the beach all day and not do a single thing and then go eat at a place and get some drinks in the evening and be satisfied. He's also known for being extremely loud and boisterous, especially when drunk. Very typical ESE male. No wonder I never liked him, especially that part, lol. 

My ESI aunt and her family, on the other hand, likes to do things and plan out what tourist attractions to see. It's more focused on pro-activity. The ESE doesn't care so much for those things unless it includes some kind of comfort involved e.g. drinks (especially alcohol) and food etc. Being at the beach is fun but only up to a point. 

lol this got a lot longer than I planned but it's interesting to observe these things, anyway. Now I almost feel like I want to make one of those kinship maps except with types instead, so you can see the cross-connections. In retrospect, I'm surprised I don't think anyone has ever bothered to do that. If there would be any way to try to scientifically track types and whether there's some kind of genetic factor when it comes to type distribution within the family, it would be kinship maps.

Last but not least though funnily, dad isn't too keen on his own quadra. He mostly wants to be by himself. I've sometimes questioned whether he's an IEI or EII instead, but the fact he can Fe but it's so very awkward when he does, is what really makes me lean LII for him. He does it extremely rarely though, which is a little weird seeing how he grew up with grandma as his dual, but she's so smothering that every close family member wants to keep a lot of physical distance to her as to keep psychological distance too. People can't really manage the constant smothering. It's over-bearing and too much. He does kind of enjoy the SEI-ESE couple though, I think, when they do meet, but again, he's more inert and observes those things rather than participating. He only really seems to participate in group stuff when he feels comfortable and quite drunk. I remember I went with my parents to a party way back, and dad does this awkward as fuck dance and grimacing lol. 

There's a part where the suggestive is just so bad everyone else can tell it's really bad too, because when it shows, it's so extremely rigid, childish and inflexible. I guess that's why Quenk's book is called Was That Really Me?, because people don't really enjoy showing that part where they are so incompetent. At least with the PoLR there's a certain pride associated with that you don't need or want to do it whereas with the suggestive you wish you could do that stuff but you really don't, so you end up hiding that from people as to avoid judgement because you feel more comfortable being criticized if it's your ego block as opposed to super-id.


----------



## aendern

Does anyone know any SEEs who aren't singers or racecar drivers?

I can't find any on any website anywhere.

Preferably ones who have been interviewed and have videos on YouTube of them.


----------



## Abraxas

emberfly said:


> Does anyone know any SEEs who aren't singers or racecar drivers?
> 
> I can't find any on any website anywhere.
> 
> Preferably ones who have been interviewed and have videos on YouTube of them.


I had one for a boss when I was working at a fast-food restaurant once.

But she turned out to be a lesbian, so unfortunately that never had a chance of getting off the ground.

Only because I couldn't afford a sex change though.


----------



## Psithurism

Night Huntress said:


> The way I see it, a lot of parents and responsible adults have several SJ-ish protective, pragmatic and nurturing qualities that they necessarily have adopted in front of their children, to take care of them. It doesn't necessarily denote that they value those qualities and feel comfortable in that mask.


There is also another problem. There exists the stereotype that those type of traits are mostly correlated to SJ types. But there is no reason to think, for example, that a SLE can't be naturally protective or nurturing (albeit how it is motivated or presented might differ from other types).

Anyways, this is how I currently peg my family: 

Dad: LSE 1w9 Sp/So
Mom: EII 2w1 Sp/So
Sister: SEE 8w7 So/Sx
Brother: SLI 9w8 Sp/So

I suppose I got lucky with not having to deal with Fe growing up. A lot of Si though.


----------



## Strife




----------



## Kintsugi

The stubbornness of Gamma is equally as sexy as it is a FUCKING head fuck.

Seriously.

Now I see why the NT is my match. They are, seemingly, unbreakable.

Bastards.


----------



## Figure

Kintsugi said:


> The stubbornness of Gamma is equally as sexy as it is a FUCKING head fuck.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> Now I see why the NT is my match. They are, seemingly, unbreakable.
> 
> Bastards.



We're definitely not "unbreakable." It's just that our tactics make you a poor match for us 

Keeeeeeep spinning your wheels Kintsugi - we'll just sit and smirk XD


----------



## Kintsugi

Figure said:


> We're definitely not "unbreakable." It's just that our tactics make you a poor match for us
> 
> Keeeeeeep spinning your wheels Kintsugi - we'll just sit and smirk XD


I keep hearing shit about "efficiency" and I'm like...

"get to the fucking point, already."

LOL.

I'm feeling the tension and electricity of two equally stubborn and uncompromising forces collide.

It's exciting. :3


----------



## Figure

Kintsugi said:


> I keep hearing shit about "efficiency" and I'm like...
> 
> "get to the fucking point, already."
> 
> LOL.


Are you saying that we ramble? That's not possible. Unless by Gamma NT you mean Te LIE's. I'm pretty sure they talk for hours without even realizing they are talking. 




> I'm feeling the tension and electricity of two equally stubborn and uncompromising forces collide.
> 
> It's exciting. :3


That sounds like what my dog would say if it could talk, when I yank it back from getting too close to the electric fence.


----------



## hal0hal0

Well, today marks a day for celebration, which I will commemorate by making my first post in this thread. :cheers2::happybirthday: (well, it's somebody's birthday somewhere).



Kintsugi said:


> I keep hearing shit about "efficiency" and I'm like...
> 
> "get to the fucking point, already."
> 
> LOL.
> 
> I'm feeling the tension and electricity of two equally stubborn and uncompromising forces collide.
> 
> It's exciting. :3


You're back! How's 'Stralia? Glad I saw the name change; those always confuse me :kitteh:


----------



## Kintsugi

Figure said:


> Are you saying that we ramble? That's not possible. Unless by Gamma NT you mean Te LIE's. I'm pretty sure they talk for hours without even realizing they are talking.


Gamma NTs do fucking ramble. But, bare in mind, that the whole world rambles to the Gamma SF (YES, there is a RIGHT a WRONG when it comes to this shit, fuck you for even suggesting otherwise, lol).

Can't put into words the things I have experienced with my Gamma NT friends. Only that, those guys fucking rock. Equally, Gamma SFs are fucking AWESOME! Maybe you and my wonderful Gamma bastards need to spend a week together in some random island. Then we can take it from there.


----------



## Kintsugi

hal0hal0 said:


> Well, today marks a day for celebration, which I will commemorate by making my first post in this thread. :cheers2::happybirthday: (well, it's somebody's birthday somewhere).


:kitteh:

Yeah, baby!

I love you and your crazy weirdness ways.

I love your SFPness more than anything.

You rock. <3



> You're back! How's 'Stralia? Glad I saw the name change; those always confuse me


I might wake up and forget the name change, But, it made ssense....in the moment. And that's all that fucking matters.


Dude I love you. We are both quite crazy. That's all there is to it. LOL.


----------



## Figure

Kintsugi said:


> Gamma NTs do fucking ramble. But, bare in mind, that the whole world rambles to the Gamma SF (YES, there is a RIGHT a WRONG when it comes to this shit, fuck you for even suggesting otherwise, lol).


For suggesting what? You're going to have to (rolls eyes) _not ramble_. 



> Can't put into words the things I have experienced with my Gamma NT friends. Only that, those guys fucking rock. Equally, Gamma SFs are fucking AWESOME! Maybe you and my wonderful Gamma bastards need to spend a week together in some random island. Then we can take it from there.


Well, you now live on a random island, only half way around the world so IDK about the efficiency of that idea. 

I agree with you that Gamma SF's are awesome : )


----------



## Kintsugi

Figure said:


> For suggesting what? You're going to have to (rolls eyes) _not ramble_.


Fuck you, lol. *pins you down and tickles the fuck out of you!* 

Gamma NTs are too smart for their own good! lol. The best thing is to just pin them down on all fours and take it from that. 



> Well, you now live on a random island, only half way around the world so IDK about the efficiency of that idea.
> 
> I agree with you that Gamma SF's are awesome : )


We won't let the idea/dream, die.

Watch this space. Be amazed. Watch us push those boundaries.

We will.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Kintsugi said:


> I keep hearing shit about "efficiency" and I'm like...
> 
> "get to the fucking point, already."
> 
> LOL.


I'm aware of doing that kind of rambling, but still it doesn't reach the levels of Ne types XD even I want to run away when my mom or my Ne valuing relatives tell stories x_x


----------



## Kintsugi

Blue Flare said:


> I'm aware of doing that kind of rambling, but still it doesn't reach the levels of Ne types XD even I want to run away when my mom or my Ne valuing relatives tell stories x_x


Fuck those bastards, lol.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Kintsugi said:


> Fuck those bastards, lol.


Agree, I need a ton of brainbleach after being exposed to them x_x SiNe is the death of me, worse if it has some Fe too.


----------



## hal0hal0

@Figure @Kintsugi

We Gamma SPs are the kind of people that need to touch the electric fence, just to see how badly we get zapped. :exterminate:


----------



## Figure

Kintsugi said:


> Fuck you, lol. *pins you down and tickles the fuck out of you!*
> 
> Gamma NTs are too smart for their own good! lol. The best thing is to just pin them down on all fours and take it from that.


Yeah, because you would know_ all _about that. I trust your experience. 



> We won't let the idea/dream, die.
> 
> Watch this space. Be amazed. Watch us push those boundaries.
> 
> We will.


I see you've followed my advice from a bit ago and kept trying XD Well keep on then! 




hal0hal0 said:


> @_Figure_ @_Kintsugi_
> 
> We Gamma SPs are the kind of people that need to touch the electric fence, just to see how badly we get zapped. :exterminate:


Not without a leash


----------



## Dragheart Luard

hal0hal0 said:


> @_Figure_ @_Kintsugi_
> 
> We Gamma SPs are the kind of people that need to touch the electric fence, just to see how badly we get zapped. :exterminate:


And a Gamma NT would be there saying, I warned you about this but you still wanted to touch the fence. Also, this reminds me a lot of a character that a friend made some time ago lol such a loose cannon xD


----------



## aendern

Figure said:


> Are you saying that we ramble? That's not possible. Unless by Gamma NT you mean Te LIE's. I'm pretty sure they talk for hours without even realizing they are talking.


Yesss, this.

LSEs make great talkers, as well.


----------



## Bash

hal0hal0 said:


> @Figure @Kintsugi
> 
> We Gamma SPs are the kind of people that need to touch the electric fence, just to see how badly we get zapped. :exterminate:


Yes.That's why we love you.


----------



## Snow

hal0hal0 said:


> @Figure @Kintsugi
> 
> We Gamma SPs are the kind of people that need to touch the electric fence, just to see how badly we get zapped. :exterminate:


We Gamma NTs are the kind of people that need to use you guys as cannon fodder, just to see if you'll follow our orders.


----------



## Figure

Look I realize complaining about things does nothing to resolve them, but am I alone in thinking this forum has basically tanked? 

Pretty much every other topic revolves around MBTI-socionics conversion, and people disagreeing on fundamental ways of approaching the system (when in fact it's perfectly fine to not convert, and learn the system on its own). We have a handful of people on here who write posts every 5 minutes, all of which are either misleading and factually uninformed, or just stupid arguing. And I _like _arguing - but the style on this forum is pathetic. It's not even interesting to read. 

The thing that really surprises me is how few people here base their interest in socionics around the intertypes. Of course not every relationship is the same, but the energetics of each intertype repeating over and over with people of the same type is what really, _really _proves to me that socionics works. I can't possibly be the only person who notices this.


----------



## Abraxas

Figure said:


> Look I realize complaining about things does nothing to resolve them, but am I alone in thinking this forum has basically tanked?
> 
> Pretty much every other topic revolves around MBTI-socionics conversion, and people disagreeing on fundamental ways of approaching the system (when in fact it's perfectly fine to not convert, and learn the system on its own). We have a handful of people on here who write posts every 5 minutes, all of which are either misleading and factually uninformed, or just stupid arguing. And I _like _arguing - but the style on this forum is pathetic. It's not even interesting to read.


Yep, literally this.

This is why I haven't posted here in weeks, except just a minute ago to help out Silveresque in her thread, and now I'm about to vanish again I think, because I just skimmed a few threads and that voice in my head said, "yeah, not worth it" to every single one.



Figure said:


> The thing that really surprises me is how few people here base their interest in socionics around the intertypes. Of course not every relationship is the same, but the energetics of each intertype repeating over and over with people of the same type is what really, _really _proves to me that socionics works. I can't possibly be the only person who notices this.


Nah, I notice it too. It's honestly what brought me over the fence with Socionics. In the past I put it down because it didn't make sense to me when I tried to understand it categorically by comparing it to what I already understood from Jung and other systems (Beebe, Thompson), but as soon as I started looking at how it explained the dissonance between types so well, I was sold.

The way I look at things now is like,

Really broad generalizations about a person that work well enough at a glance: Jungian type
Hit-or-miss generalizations about a person's fears and desires: Enneagram
Specifically how a person sees themselves: MBTI
Specifically how we see each other: Socionics

To make the comparison, it's like, if you ever read White Wolf's "World of Darkness" RPG books for the different "splats" (Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, Changeling, etc), whenever they would write a section about a clan, or a bloodline, or something like that, they'd always have this little box with the perspectives that particular clan/bloodline/etc had about each other clan/bloodline/etc, and those were always extremely useful to me, in fact, they told me so much more about that specific clan/bloodline/etc than the whole chapter write-up, because the chapter write-up always struck me as "embellished" for the sake of making the sale, or nuanced to the point of being unclear, whereas the way each clan/bloodline/etc viewed each other was the real nitty-gritty, and gave you the real clear understanding minus all the (mostly) unnecessary lore.

That's how I see socionics. Although, truth be told, it has both. Socionics is like, World of Darkness. Lol. It gives you the long-winded write-up summary and all the technical shit, but it also gives you the "intratype" stuff, which is the real meat of it.


----------



## Recede

Abraxas said:


> Hit-or-miss generalizations about a person's fears and desires: Enneagram


I actually think enneagram isn't necessarily about fears or desires but the specific ways in which the ego distorts reality. For instance, in type 9 there's a loss of the Essential quality of presence. One believes on some level that it is possible for parts of reality to not have presence, to not be fully real and impactful. And so the 9 may lose touch with their own presence and assertiveness, while tuning out aspects of reality (as if reality lacks presence). Whereas in objective reality beyond ego, everything always has presence.

This can sometimes lead to certain fears or desires. For instance, I recall a type 9 described a dream once in which she was a ghost and could not make contact with anyone. The loss of presence can create a fear that one is separate from others, hence the fear of loss/separation as the Basic Fear for type 9. Though I personally don't have this fear as I've always preferred a solitary life.

But anyways, this is just my current theory that I'm working on.


----------



## VoodooDolls

Abraxas said:


> Yep, literally this.
> 
> This is why I haven't posted here in weeks, except just a minute ago to help out Silveresque in her thread, and now I'm about to vanish again I think, because I just skimmed a few threads and that voice in my head said, "yeah, not worth it" to every single one.


i feel the same about your posts

*breaking the law by judas priest main riff kicks in*


----------



## aendern

Abraxas said:


> To make the comparison, it's like, if you ever read White Wolf's "World of Darkness" RPG books for the different "splats" (Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, Changeling, etc), whenever they would write a section about a clan, or a bloodline, or something like that, they'd always have this little box with the perspectives that particular clan/bloodline/etc had about each other clan/bloodline/etc, and those were always extremely useful to me, in fact, they told me so much more about that specific clan/bloodline/etc than the whole chapter write-up, because the chapter write-up always struck me as "embellished" for the sake of making the sale, or nuanced to the point of being unclear, whereas the way each clan/bloodline/etc viewed each other was the real nitty-gritty, and gave you the real clear understanding minus all the (mostly) unnecessary lore.
> 
> That's how I see socionics. Although, truth be told, it has both. Socionics is like, World of Darkness. Lol. It gives you the long-winded write-up summary and all the technical shit, but it also gives you the "intratype" stuff, which is the real meat of it.


omg I love that you mentioned World of Darkness. Did you know they planned an MMO for that years ago but it has yet to come out ? It seems unlikely that it will ever get made at this point. It has been so long.


----------



## Abraxas

* *


----------



## Vermillion

This subforum has gone to the fucking dogs. It's so annoying. Most of the active posters here just reduce my IQ every time I see them. 

And it used to be a chill place where you could get actual serious discussion going without some fucktards jumping down your throats to endorse their ~new and improved~ models of Socionics. Absolutely disgusting.


----------



## Abraxas

Night Huntress said:


> This subforum has gone to the fucking dogs. It's so annoying. Most of the active posters here just reduce my IQ every time I see them.
> 
> And it used to be a chill place where you could get actual serious discussion going without some fucktards jumping down your throats to endorse their ~new and improved~ models of Socionics. Absolutely disgusting.


Lately I've been getting more and more sidetracked by enneagram and drifting away from socionics. While I don't see anything wrong with socionics in terms of it's descriptive power or predictive power, reliability, any of that - from a pragmatic point of view, it's really impractical. Whenever I find myself in a discussion of personality theory with people, I either avoid bringing up socionics, or find that whenever I do, it takes so long to explain even the basic concepts, that it's not worth my time. Socionics is suitable, I think, for an in-depth analysis of social forces or for people who really want to go balls deep into the subject of personality, but it's not something you dabble in. It takes a lot of time to really study it and understand it properly.

Enneagram is like the complete opposite. It takes like, five minutes to explain it to someone who's never heard of it before. I like that it focuses on emotions, particularly negative emotions, because for one thing I'm kind of a fatalistic person, and for another, it seems like everyone is a feeler these days in my eyes and I have a much easier time relaying meaningful predictions and insights to people by explaining them in terms of shame, anger, fear, externalizing, internalizing, etc. Everyone "gets" that right away. Usually the people who dispute what I'm saying are thinkers, and being a thinker myself, I just privately go "oh, you're a thinker" in my head, and adjust what I'm saying to be more nuanced or whatever, and then they get it. So, it's almost immediately useful to everyone.

Also, holy shit is it easy to see what a person's enneagram type is. For as deeply as I understand Jungian functions and his psychological models, it's still faster to type someone's enneagram type. I mean, wow, really. The second you see someone start to sweat - boom enneagram type apparent. All you have to do is look at the context to see what triggered it, and how they reacted to it, and there it is. I almost feel a little bad about how easy it is really, like it's dishonest or something, because you're taking advantage of a person's moment of weakness to gain all this leverage over them that there's just nothing they can do anything about. Once you know what the buttons are, I mean, you can just fuck with someone. They're your complete bitch if you want to be cruel to them.

Thank god for them I'm mostly a nice person, but still. Gatdam. Enneagram too stronk. Nerf pls.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Are the Socionics forums really that much worse than they used to be? I know I used to enjoy them more, but part of that, I think, could be the sense of novelty having worn off. 

@_Abraxas_
I do like the implication that feelers are less nuanced in their understanding.


----------



## Abraxas

@Distortions,

Yeah, I mean it as a compliment to be clear. It's so much easier to explain things to feelers. Thinkers always demand more precision of language. But, specifically enneagram I mean, is a lot easier to explain to feelers, because enneagram is all about emotions mostly. So it's already in that kind of language.

Trying to explain socionics or even MBTI to a feeler though, that's a lot harder, because the model itself is so much more "thinkery" if you follow me. Cognitive functions, information metabolism, and all that kind of technical ideation is more the realm of logic than it is ethics. It's "scientific" and in a way dehumanizing, in the way that it describes people. It's not humanitarian enough.

But something like enneagram, where it starts getting into how we're all the victim of our own weaknesses, and you start talking about how to grow past that and evolve, and like - I mean, to give an example, I was just trying to explain what being a "type 2 that externalizes shame and wing 1 that internalizes anger" means in simple terms, and all I had to do was say, "your sense of 'what is shameful to do' and 'what is not shameful' is derived from having a keen awareness of what is generally considered by the majority of people to be shameful or not shameful, and that's how you make decisions about what to do in a given situation. To you, to ignore the feelings and expectations of others is rude, and so you don't do it and you think it's rude when other people just ignore the feelings and expectations of others. You're a people pleaser and you want to please other people, so you do things to be helpful and generous and kind, because that's generally praiseworthy, and you want to be praised."

His MBTI type is INFJ, so... I mean, he's already got Fe auxiliary, so everything I just said pretty much nailed it for him. Spot on, like, absolutely 100% accurate in his case. And no surprise to me of course, because like I say, I knew he was an INFJ, soooo, Fe, and a type 2w1? Yep, that w1 is probably Ni-dominant introversion, internalizing anger and getting mad at himself for not having the insight to "git gud" in the first place and so he blames himself - a very INFJ thing to do as well. Case closed, mystery of his type solved. Next please.

And then it's like, yeah I could probably go into an even deeper analysis of his sociotype and make predictions using that, but... why? For him I mean, just knowing about his lead and auxiliary functions, and knowing his enneagram, that's more than enough information for him to grow if he really wants to. And for me, that's more than enough to make all kinds of useful predictions about him so that I can interact with him easily.

I don't know. I guess I'm just finding that where the rubber-meets-the-road, enneagram is really the most useful model so far, at least, in a practical way. And then maybe jungian functions, but with those I really don't need to go too deep into the dynamics of it. Just the dominant (which implies their inferior) and the auxiliary is more than enough to get by.

Socionics just feels like... too much. It's so... Ti. So overly complicated. It doesn't need to be this complicated. People aren't so complex in my opinion. At least, not their personalities. PEOPLE are complex, sure, but not their _personalities_, that's just a generalization anyway, so like... fuck it... there's no need to be so specific. Just get it done.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

@Abraxas about Socionics being too complicated, to be honest I mostly use model A, dimensionality sometimes as a shortcurt for knowing which functions are base and creative and intertype. The rest I tend to ignore it as it's more difficult to spot, and while some Reinins are useful too, others are complicated to figure out correctly. Mostly for double checking my current ideas.

Now with Enneagram I take longer to confirm it, as I can get some ideas but I prefer to observe more for being sure. I suspect that I can detect faster types like 7, as I know well how it works so spotting those trends in other people isn't complicated, while for other types I prefer to get more information first, specially if I can't see the people dealing with their weak points during a certain moment.


----------



## Vermillion

Abraxas said:


> Lately I've been getting more and more sidetracked by enneagram and drifting away from socionics. While I don't see anything wrong with socionics in terms of it's descriptive power or predictive power, reliability, any of that - from a pragmatic point of view, it's really impractical. Whenever I find myself in a discussion of personality theory with people, I either avoid bringing up socionics, or find that whenever I do, it takes so long to explain even the basic concepts, that it's not worth my time. Socionics is suitable, I think, for an in-depth analysis of social forces or for people who really want to go balls deep into the subject of personality, but it's not something you dabble in. It takes a lot of time to really study it and understand it properly.
> 
> Enneagram is like the complete opposite. It takes like, five minutes to explain it to someone who's never heard of it before. I like that it focuses on emotions, particularly negative emotions, because for one thing I'm kind of a fatalistic person, and for another, it seems like everyone is a feeler these days in my eyes and I have a much easier time relaying meaningful predictions and insights to people by explaining them in terms of shame, anger, fear, externalizing, internalizing, etc. Everyone "gets" that right away. Usually the people who dispute what I'm saying are thinkers, and being a thinker myself, I just privately go "oh, you're a thinker" in my head, and adjust what I'm saying to be more nuanced or whatever, and then they get it. So, it's almost immediately useful to everyone.
> 
> Also, holy shit is it easy to see what a person's enneagram type is. For as deeply as I understand Jungian functions and his psychological models, it's still faster to type someone's enneagram type. I mean, wow, really. The second you see someone start to sweat - boom enneagram type apparent. All you have to do is look at the context to see what triggered it, and how they reacted to it, and there it is. I almost feel a little bad about how easy it is really, like it's dishonest or something, because you're taking advantage of a person's moment of weakness to gain all this leverage over them that there's just nothing they can do anything about. Once you know what the buttons are, I mean, you can just fuck with someone. They're your complete bitch if you want to be cruel to them.
> 
> Thank god for them I'm mostly a nice person, but still. Gatdam. Enneagram too stronk. Nerf pls.


Enneagram does focus on emotions and easily understandable, "human" archetypes in a way Socionics doesn't, but I wouldn't say that describing Enneatypes in simple, "5-minute" terms does them justice either. I mean, I guess you could say "1s are like these righteous and angry people, 5s love shutting themselves in and collecting information", etc, but short, vague descriptions often miss a lot of important nuances about the types. I mean, there's a reason a lot of people mistype when discovering the Enneagram -- because they access incomplete information, or don't know how to relate information to themselves, etc. It requires quite a lot of rigor and commitment, too. 

To some extent, vague descriptors like "fear", "anger", and "shame" are things we can ALL relate to, and that's why it's important to know them in the context of the type so we don't consider ourselves to be a type just because some of these things show up in our behavior sometimes. I've seen PLENTY of feelers make mistakes with the Enneagram, indulge in stereotypes, etc., even when they've read up on a lot of information. Which makes it even less likely that feelers are innately just "getting" the Enneagram with very less information.

Just as there are a lot of side theories in Socionics like dimensionality, subtypes, etc, there are side theories in Enneagram too, like instinctual variants, tritypes, wings etc that provide a lot of extra nuance to types. You could argue it's all unnecessary stuff and the core type is what is important, but that applies to Socionics too, if one disregards behavioral classifications altogether. So what I'm saying both systems have their own brand of complications and are equally capable of encouraging misunderstandings. 

Enneagram is more "feeler-y" and Socionics is more "thinker-y", sure. Enneagram archetypes are best understood in a Ni fashion, so perhaps it is ridiculously easy for you, as an Ni dom. That could certainly be possible. But the way I've experienced it, a lot of people with 5-minute understandings tend to oversimplify/stereotype Enneagram. I'm not saying that's true for you. But that's where my skepticism arises. Because there is a LOT to each Enneatype, and one should be particularly careful dealing with this system and how it's applied onto people because it talks about their fears and core motivations -- fucking up understanding those things could seriously hurt people.


----------



## Abraxas

Night Huntress said:


> Enneagram does focus on emotions and easily understandable, "human" archetypes in a way Socionics doesn't, but I wouldn't say that describing Enneatypes in simple, "5-minute" terms does them justice either. I mean, I guess you could say "1s are like these righteous and angry people, 5s love shutting themselves in and collecting information", etc, but short, vague descriptions often miss a lot of important nuances about the types. I mean, there's a reason a lot of people mistype when discovering the Enneagram -- because they access incomplete information, or don't know how to relate information to themselves, etc. It requires quite a lot of rigor and commitment, too.
> 
> To some extent, vague descriptors like "fear", "anger", and "shame" are things we can ALL relate to, and that's why it's important to know them in the context of the type so we don't consider ourselves to be a type just because some of these things show up in our behavior sometimes. I've seen PLENTY of feelers make mistakes with the Enneagram, indulge in stereotypes, etc., even when they've read up on a lot of information. Which makes it even less likely that feelers are innately just "getting" the Enneagram with very less information.
> 
> Just as there are a lot of side theories in Socionics like dimensionality, subtypes, etc, there are side theories in Enneagram too, like instinctual variants, tritypes, wings etc that provide a lot of extra nuance to types. You could argue it's all unnecessary stuff and the core type is what is important, but that applies to Socionics too, if one disregards behavioral classifications altogether. So what I'm saying both systems have their own brand of complications and are equally capable of encouraging misunderstandings.
> 
> Enneagram is more "feeler-y" and Socionics is more "thinker-y", sure. Enneagram archetypes are best understood in a Ni fashion, so perhaps it is ridiculously easy for you, as an Ni dom. That could certainly be possible. But the way I've experienced it, a lot of people with 5-minute understandings tend to oversimplify/stereotype Enneagram. I'm not saying that's true for you. But that's where my skepticism arises. Because there is a LOT to each Enneatype, and one should be particularly careful dealing with this system and how it's applied onto people because it talks about their fears and core motivations -- fucking up understanding those things could seriously hurt people.


Yeah, but I'm not evaluating it and saying "it's easier" based on the experiences of other people who are trying to use it themselves. I'm saying it's easier _for me_.

I think most people are just shit at understanding personality theory and can't apply this stuff without doing the kind of nuanced rigorous study you're talking about.

I really don't need to do that. I "get" it, and I can apply it with minimal time spent splitting hairs. It's easier for me to type people at a glance with enneagram than it is with MBTI or Socionics, and it's easier for me to give someone a generalized description of an enneagram type than it is a sociotype, because with a sociotype I have to explain a billion things to them. With Enneagram, they just need to know what the triad they are in is all about, and a few other things, and that's enough to go forward.

_Actually, as a side-note here (editing this in as it just occured to me I should probably give you an idea of what I talk about with someone), 5-minutes is longer than you think. In 5 minutes I can explain their core type, the fact that most people have a wing because the enneagram is like a clock or a color wheel with a spectrum of types, and we only make these distinctions for the sake of clarity and comparison, but in reality it's a smooth continuum, and so I talk about their wings; I usually bring up someone they have met, or someone we both know, or even myself, to contrast their own type against, so they can see how each type is different, and how we get along or why we sometimes feel differently; I explain what the difference is between the triads, thinking, feeling, instinctual, how one type in each triad is internalizing, one is externalizing, and one is repressive; I go over the path of integration versus disintegration.

I don't usually talk about instinctual variants, and I don't talk about tritypes at first, unless they want me to go deeper, and then I bring that stuff up._

When you say there's "a lot" to enneagram, yeah of course. But, "ain't nobody got time fo' dat shit" - unless they're obsessive nerds like you and me and the kids on these forums. Most "normal" folks only want the 5-minute shallow description and something they can go, "oh wow that's neat" and go back to doing whatever they do. What you're describing is the kind of in-depth analysis that they can get if they want by asking me more questions, or if I can tell they're interested, then obviously I can talk their ears off. I'll drop into a 30 minute extemporaneous lecture about it if I have to. Like Entropic does. I mean, shit look at the video him and I made. We're like two professors mind-melding for an hour and every time we try to stop, it ends up going on instead. I don't just do that with him. I do that with anyone who shows interest in the subjects I'm well-versed in.

If you don't trust my short-hand descriptions of the enneagram types, that's fine. But you want it both ways and you can't have it. You have to make a sacrifice somewhere. I can't possibly do justice to the depth of the model - of ANY personality theory, pick one - in a 5-minute short description of a type. But what am I supposed to do? People want to know about this stuff and they need a hook with some bait on it. So I give them the nitty gritty. People want the gist, so I give them the gist. You want more, but that's you - you don't really represent most people, and I can tell you from experience, most people don't even have the tolerance to listen to this shit for more than 5 minutes before they go, "alright, yeah nevermind. Sorry I asked."

And frankly, I agree with most people. This shit is way too overly complicated and a simple, pragmatic approach to the whole damn thing is much better, even if it is leaving out all the implications for people to have to discover on their own. It's easier for them to understand and it's easier for me to explain.

Leave science to the scientists.


----------



## Vermillion

Abraxas said:


> Yeah, but I'm not evaluating it and saying "it's easier" based on the experiences of other people who are trying to use it themselves. I'm saying it's easier _for me_.
> 
> I think most people are just shit at understanding personality theory and can't apply this stuff without doing the kind of nuanced rigorous study you're talking about.
> 
> I really don't need to do that. I "get" it, and I can apply it with minimal time spent splitting hairs. It's easier for me to type people at a glance with enneagram than it is with MBTI or Socionics, and it's easier for me to give someone a generalized description of an enneagram type than it is a sociotype, because with a sociotype I have to explain a billion things to them. With Enneagram, they just need to know what the triad they are in is all about, and a few other things, and that's enough to go forward.
> 
> _Actually, as a side-note here (editing this in as it just occured to me I should probably give you an idea of what I talk about with someone), 5-minutes is longer than you think. In 5 minutes I can explain their core type, the fact that most people have a wing because the enneagram is like a clock or a color wheel with a spectrum of types, and we only make these distinctions for the sake of clarity and comparison, but in reality it's a smooth continuum, and so I talk about their wings; I usually bring up someone they have met, or someone we both know, or even myself, to contrast their own type against, so they can see how each type is different, and how we get along or why we sometimes feel differently; I explain what the difference is between the triads, thinking, feeling, instinctual, how one type in each triad is internalizing, one is externalizing, and one is repressive; I go over the path of integration versus disintegration.
> 
> I don't usually talk about instinctual variants, and I don't talk about tritypes at first, unless they want me to go deeper, and then I bring that stuff up._
> 
> When you say there's "a lot" to enneagram, yeah of course. But, "ain't nobody got time fo' dat shit" - unless they're obsessive nerds like you and me and the kids on these forums. Most "normal" folks only want the 5-minute shallow description and something they can go, "oh wow that's neat" and go back to doing whatever they do. What you're describing is the kind of in-depth analysis that they can get if they want by asking me more questions, or if I can tell they're interested, then obviously I can talk their ears off. I'll drop into a 30 minute extemporaneous lecture about it if I have to. Like Entropic does. I mean, shit look at the video him and I made. We're like two professors mind-melding for an hour and every time we try to stop, it ends up going on instead. I don't just do that with him. I do that with anyone who shows interest in the subjects I'm well-versed in.
> 
> If you don't trust my short-hand descriptions of the enneagram types, that's fine. But you want it both ways and you can't have it. You have to make a sacrifice somewhere. I can't possibly do justice to the depth of the model - of ANY personality theory, pick one - in a 5-minute short description of a type. But what am I supposed to do? People want to know about this stuff and they need a hook with some bait on it. So I give them the nitty gritty. People want the gist, so I give them the gist. You want more, but that's you - you don't really represent most people, and I can tell you from experience, most people don't even have the tolerance to listen to this shit for more than 5 minutes before they go, "alright, yeah nevermind. Sorry I asked."
> 
> And frankly, I agree with most people. This shit is way too overly complicated and a simple, pragmatic approach to the whole damn thing is much better, even if it is leaving out all the implications for people to have to discover on their own. It's easier for them to understand and it's easier for me to explain.
> 
> Leave science to the scientists.


You're talking more about the practical, day-to-day part of it, I think, and I was talking more about the right approach to understanding Enneagram in general. I mean yeah, I perfectly understand that most people don't like to listen to much about typology. Mostly it's just me introducing it animatedly and them being like, "Oh, um, wow. That's really interesting stuff. I'll check it out." The end. And when you're giving people a sales pitch you can't afford to include the nuances and the important stuff because they're going to be bored to death. That's kinda inevitable.

What I'm concerned about is people actually only affording that much depth to typology _even_ when they begin to explore it for themselves. That sort of tendency to focus on the superficialities can be really damaging. 

Though I'm getting this feeling of frustration from your post -- why? It's almost like you think knowing too much about typology is not "normal" and is way too "obsessive". Most people are nerds about something or the other, in the end... so it's nothing to worry about. I don't think knowing all the nuances and details of something is a _bad_ thing, as long as we know where to stop. Oversimplifying things is just as lame as overcomplicating them. Balancing nuance and clarity is a fine line we all have to walk. But I'm sorry if I'm assuming wrong things about your tone >_>


----------



## Abraxas

Blue Flare said:


> @_Abraxas_ about Socionics being too complicated, to be honest I mostly use model A, dimensionality sometimes as a shortcurt for knowing which functions are base and creative and intertype. The rest I tend to ignore it as it's more difficult to spot, and while some Reinins are useful too, others are complicated to figure out correctly. Mostly for double checking my current ideas.
> 
> Now with Enneagram I take longer to confirm it, as I can get some ideas but I prefer to observe more for being sure. I suspect that I can detect faster types like 7, as I know well how it works so spotting those trends in other people isn't complicated, while for other types I prefer to get more information first, specially if I can't see the people dealing with their weak points during a certain moment.


I'm not sure why it's so easy for me, or why my typings are so accurate. It's probably because of informations I've already assimilated over the years, and it all just kind of clicks and "works."

One thing I guess is maybe the reason why I have an easier time typing people is because I don't start with their core type. You have to start extremely broad and narrow it down gradually. You can't just be looking for the signs of a type 7, or the signs of a type 5, and go "well he seems kind of like a 5" - that's way too specific to be a starting point. You have to understand the entire enneagram as a holistic thing. Don't even see the numbers. Just break it down into triads first. See the larger groupings, place them into a larger group, and then keep trimming the fat till you get to the meat.

That's how I type people in every model. I don't start with types. I start way more abstract than that, and let the chips fall as they may.

It's actually easier than MBTI for instance, because with MBTI you have four dichotomies, and there's really no way to abstract from that, because they don't overlap into larger conceptual categories. I/E just has nothing to do with J/P, for instance. They don't overlap, so I can't work from the abstract. I have to just bite the bullet and figure out each dichotomy one at a time. With enneagram, there are three triads, and the whole thing is a wheel - a circle - so the whole thing is one holistic system. That makes it WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY easier to type people, because you can just look at the abstract.

A couple other short-cuts that I can take with enneagram that I can't think of a corollary for in socionics or MBTI, is the internalizing/externalizing/repressing attitude of each type in every triad, and the core weaknesses - shame, anger, fear.

So for example, a person who evaluates life in terms of "what is shameful" is noticeably different from a person who evaluates life in terms of _risk aversion_ - the fear triad (thinking) - or from someone (like myself) who evaluates life in terms of what pisses me off and what doesn't (instinctual, anger).

Take the instinctual triad. Sure, everyone gets mad. But why? Being honest, you know why I get mad? Because I'm a shitty manchild who is instinctual and goes, "I want to have thing" - but I can't have thing, and so I go "BUT I WANT THING" and dude, that is literally what the instinctual variant is all about. I'm being of serious with you comrade. Instinctual types "want to have thing" and get mad because they can't have thing. 8's externalize that rage and they project the blame outward for their own discontent. 1's internalize the rage and blame themselves for their own discontent (I'm a 1 wing, so let me tell you how much of a perfectionist I am sometime, and how I privately/not-so-privately think other people are helpless plebs that need to step the fuck up and "git gud"). 9's don't like getting mad at all, so they try to avoid circumstances and situations where they are forced to realize that they can't have thing, or they try to convince themselves they don't really want thing - WHATEVER IT TAKES to avoid getting upset (or upsetting others).

Maybe it's also my age? I don't know. Like, I'm working with 32 years of exposure to human beings. My intuition has more information to work with in order to assemble an insight to show me. This stuff just _works_ for me.

You may be sitting there after reading that short description I just gave of the instinctual triad going "EUUUGH, holy shit that's such a shit awful description of that triad, YOU KNOW NOTHING JON SNOW. UNSUBSCRIBED." But this is touching upon something I said to Silveresque in her type-me thread before. You're basing that assessment on your personal experiences in life, and the insight that you've gained from them. If you haven't been exposed to the same mitigating factors in life that I have, then you and me are doing to have a very different understanding of life and how shit goes down. So we're both equipped to understand this stuff in our own way, and your understanding might equip you to better explain this stuff to some people, or it might hinder your ability to explain it at all, even to yourself.

I don't know dude, maybe I just got lucky. But I've had a lot of positive feedback from people I've talked to about enneagram, compared to socionics or MBTI. MBTI I do alright with, but enneagram, I fucking nail it every time. So I'm inclined to disregard the naysayers who read my descriptions on this forum and think I'm misleading people. Frankly, I think that's bullshit. I completely understand the theory, and people who get the theory from me completely understand it too, and they can apply it in a way that gets _immediate results_, and that's the whole point of all of this. RESULTS. _Make. Shit. Happen._ DO something with it, otherwise who fucking cares how "true to the theory" this shit is. If it doesn't DO anything, then it's fucking useless.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> I don't think it's determined by anything. I honestly don't know what determines it, or why, nor am I overly interested in trying to figure that out. All I know is that is how I experience it, and I know that it's pretty much a typical experience shared with all Fi types. Some things just are beyond rational explanation.


Wouldn't you need to figure it out to know what aspect of reality it is? Otherwise, you're just going by experiencing elements.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Zamyatin said:


> Considering you've openly admitted at least twice that you were intentionally baiting people and trying to get a hostile reaction, I'm ending this conversation here and waiting for the moderation to sort this all out. Don't expect any responses from me in the meantime.


? I didn't actually report y'all lol


----------



## Entropic

@Jeremy8419 should I interpret your silence and refusal to answer how to ethically deal with globalization and capitalism as an inability to deal with the subject?



Jeremy8419 said:


> Wouldn't you need to figure it out to know what aspect of reality it is? Otherwise, you're just going by experiencing elements.


Define aspect, and you can actually set the ball in motion the way you want it. It's really that simple, you know?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> @Jeremy8419 should I interpret your silence and refusal to answer how to ethically deal with globalization and capitalism as an inability to deal with the subject?


I simply don't think there is an issue with it. This only grows, same as money and consumer goods. They are tools of evolution.



> Define aspect, and you can actually set the ball in motion the way you want it. It's really that simple, you know?


IM elements are the psychic modules that perceive, process, and produce corresponding information aspects.
Aspects of reality that exist independently of the human psyche.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> I simply don't think there is an issue with it. This only grows, same as money and consumer goods. They are tools of evolution.


Clearly it does create human rights issues, though. Issues that are pertinent to discuss. You have no opinion on that? 



> IM elements are the psychic modules that perceive, process, and produce corresponding information aspects.
> Aspects of reality that exist independently of the human psyche.


That defines what an IM is, not the aspects that you mention. What aspects of reality? How do they exist independently of the human psyche?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> Clearly it does create human rights issues, though. Issues that are pertinent to discuss. You have no opinion on that?


Why do you believe they are pertinent?



> That defines what an IM is, not the aspects that you mention. What aspects of reality? How do they exist independently of the human psyche?


Well, the first sentence was part of wikisocion, and it does apply, since it references the two being different things. Lost a sentence on page reload. This was supposed to be there: "Information aspects represent an attempt to divide information into 8 different kinds." E.g., distance between objects, mass, inertia, intermolecular forces, perspective, chemical reactions. Each of these things, and everything else in existence corresponds to an information aspect. Place what basic principles and properties of the various aspects (classical word usage) of existence align to the information aspect of Fi. These exist independently of the existence of living organisms.


----------



## Vermillion

@Jeremy8419

Please apologize or leave the thread. I find it rather unfortunate that I have to ask this. However, this is an area for civil discussion on both casual and serious topics, for all members of the Socionics community, and most specifically for gammas. Your recent posts have disrupted both of these objectives. You have engaged in typism against the posters of this community, insulted people for not answering questions that you do not provide explanations for, and further attempted to bait said people into more insults. You have admitted yourself that you are toying with them.

You seem to think typing as EII gives you a free pass to undermine the "ethical" judgments of anyone with theoretically lower Fi than you. This is typism, and these things aren't required in a civil discussion. You have to understand that these things don't constitute nice behavior. No, I'm not a mod, nor am I the owner of this thread. However, I want the quality of discussion here to be maintained, and I want people to know that this is a place where people of this quadra (and others) can post without needing to worry about baiting and other forms of harassment, which cannot be overlooked, despite the attempt to resume logical discussion. You know, the last member who I remember resorted to insult under the pretext of a logical discussion, on the premises of this thread, is now permabanned. This is not a threat. It's a fact you have to face about the courtesy and standards of discussion that have to be maintained. As a self-identified Fi dom, I'm sure you understand _exactly_ what I'm referring to.

Next time, please go take a walk, get some fresh air, and calm those nerves before posting here, so that it does not result in juvenile acts of provocation. You may return to the thread when you have an explanation and/or an apology for your behavior. In the event of either of these things being absent, I will have no choice but to report you.


----------



## Convex

Night Huntress said:


> In the event of either of these things being absent, I will have no choice but to report you.


I couldn't help but hysterically laugh at this.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Night Huntress said:


> @Jeremy8419
> 
> Please apologize or leave the thread. I find it rather unfortunate that I have to ask this. However, this is an area for civil discussion on both casual and serious topics, for all members of the Socionics community, and most specifically for gammas. Your recent posts have disrupted both of these objectives. You have engaged in typism against the posters of this community, insulted people for not answering questions that you do not provide explanations for, and further attempted to bait said people into more insults. You have admitted yourself that you are toying with them.
> 
> You seem to think typing as EII gives you a free pass to undermine the "ethical" judgments of anyone with theoretically lower Fi than you. This is typism, and these things aren't required in a civil discussion. You have to understand that these things don't constitute nice behavior. No, I'm not a mod, nor am I the owner of this thread. However, I want the quality of discussion here to be maintained, and I want people to know that this is a place where people of this quadra (and others) can post without needing to worry about baiting and other forms of harassment, which cannot be overlooked, despite the attempt to resume logical discussion. You know, the last member who I remember resorted to insult under the pretext of a logical discussion, on the premises of this thread, is now permabanned. This is not a threat. It's a fact you have to face about the courtesy and standards of discussion that have to be maintained. As a self-identified Fi dom, I'm sure you understand _exactly_ what I'm referring to.
> 
> Next time, please go take a walk, get some fresh air, and calm those nerves before posting here, so that it does not result in juvenile acts of provocation. You may return to the thread when you have an explanation and/or an apology for your behavior. In the event of either of these things being absent, I will have no choice but to report you.


Well, it's not like the intent was to mess with them lol. I wanted answers about something, and got the answers to the real questions I was asking, regardless of if anyone heard them or not.

I'm sorry, though.

Lets hug it out. Supervisor-Supervisee style... Yeyuh!


----------



## Abraxas

Zamyatin said:


> Up until this point, I agree with you, but this is where you diverge from the Marxist position you tentatively claimed and start to repeat ideas used by the modern ideological left. Here's one of George Orwell's best quotes from one of his best essays, _Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun_.
> 
> 
> 
> While technically it's correct to say that politics are the attempts of groups of individuals to impose their vision of a perfect society, that belies the fact that those notions do not exist independently but instead follow from the material conditions those individuals live in. Every idea and concept can be traced to the lived experience of individuals. A rich man donating to preferred candidates believes he is protecting the wealth of his nation because his experience has lead him to believe that his wealth and his country's wealth are inseparable. A poor man votes for a socialist because he sees his poverty and believes it's caused by the capitalist system through his experience with exploitative employers.
> 
> In short, politics are about anything _but_ ideology. Like the man with a toothache, our visions of utopia are simply a projection outwards from our current position, looking at the things that bother us and imagining that they don't exist. Instead of politics starting with a vision, which attracts followers and then shapes lived experience, lived experience creates the vision which then attracts the support of people with similar experiences.
> 
> Because ideology follows experience, and experience is created by concrete, physical experiences, politics should be recognized as a battle of competing interests, fought between coalitions. Both the rich party donor and the poor socialist voter have their separate interests and their views which were created by those interests. The self interest of one faction causes them to support policy that conflicts with the self interest of the other faction. The future is determined by the faction that has the most power, and society will inexorably go in that faction's preferred direction, their self-interest being promoted at everybody else's expense.
> 
> Marx's dialectical materialism is simply the awareness that an imbalance in power (the definition of political progress) will gradually empower the existing regime's antithesis. The stronger a faction becomes, the more it alienates others because the more directly its members will represent their own individual interests. For the current dominant faction, the wealthy, the exclusion starts with their obvious enemies, the workers, but it grows (or has grown) into the middle strata and eventually the elites, as different industries compete with each other as their dominance of other classes becomes absolute. Where their policies where first about controlling the poor, and then became about crushing smaller businesses to benefit the more powerful ones, you now see policy debates about whether the interests of importers or exporters are superior, or if pharmaceutical companies should have more bargaining power than HMOs. Eventually, the excluded class becomes so big the excluded hold the greatest power in society, and revolution (peaceful or otherwise) occurs, with a new faction taking a dominant position.
> 
> Abraxas believes that liberty is the ultimate goal. The only reason he believes that is because his lived experience is one that has a lot of infringement on liberty. Take even more liberty from him, and you'd end up with a liberal activist in the USSR who believes that all of his society's problems can be solved by something simple like instituting democracy. Grant him too much liberty and he'd be a frightened person in an anarchic society, who believes all society needs is some law and order.
> 
> What doesn't change is that there is a real force behind all of these shifts in power, the material foundation of society. In the same essay I quoted earlier (in fact, the same paragraph in that essay) Orwell wrote this, in reference to ideology and attempts to create perfection.
> 
> 
> 
> Society's march into the future will occur regardless of anybody's ideas, because material informs ideas. The only thing politics accomplish is to make minor and temporary changes in this broader progress. The "solution" to society's problems will develop organically, through the evolution of power through time. Taken abstractly, this was Marx's real point, that the final revolution is both inevitable and unstoppable, and will naturally develop as technology advances.


This is one of the wisest posts I've ever read in all the years I've spent browsing this forum.

You are right, we - including myself - do project the material conditions of our own existence outward. It's an over-extension of the ego. In fact, that idea - projection - seems to be at the root of a lot of my issues with all of these personality theories I've studied over the years, and why lately I've taken a step back and hardly participate in the shared-study of any of them anymore.

I'm not even sure I see it as being realistic to expect people to ever not act in their own self-interest. I wonder if, as a biological species, we actually possess that level of maturity in our neurology. Perhaps the capacity, but not the tendency? It does not seem like altruism is as common as self-indulgence to me, although that could also be me projecting. I'm not sure.


----------



## Jeremy8419

@Abraxas

Go looky my picture, please lol.

Spent an hour on it


----------



## Jeremy8419

Also, you're missing something... The only real self-interest is to be who we naturally are. Some people are naturally givers, and some are naturally takers. The opposition to this postulation is no different than "why is a rock a rock?" It isn't "selfish," because it has no mind to formulate "wants," yet it is still being "a rock." The correct answer is not selfishness vs unselfishness, but rather the reality of being in our unaffected or affected state. You may be unaffected and a giver, or you may be affected and a taker. You may be unaffected and a taker, or you may be affected and a giver. It's not the positive/negative you question, but the existence of a perpendicular positive/negative. 2x2=4, which represents the four Quadra.


----------



## Abraxas

Jeremy8419 said:


> @_Abraxas_
> 
> Go looky my picture, please lol.
> 
> Spent an hour on it


I did. It makes sense, but it strikes me as an over-indulgence of the ideas that make up the basis of Socionics. It's not wrong, just, unnecessary (at least for me), except on paper, where it might be useful to someone who wanted to ride the train as far as it will go.

I tend to go the other direction. More abstract, rather than more specific. I don't need rules to follow, and I find highly defined, systematic ways of doing things impedes my own creativity and insight most of the time. I only need "the gist" of something, and that's fine.

Although, I will say that your images served that purpose very well. I got the gist from them, much better than I did from trying to read that translated article. Those images were way more useful in that regard, for understanding the basis of the model. I appreciate that you took the time to make them. Thank you.


----------



## Abraxas

Jeremy8419 said:


> Also, you're missing something... The only real self-interest is to be who we naturally are. Some people are naturally givers, and some are naturally takers. The opposition to this postulation is no different than "why is a rock a rock?" It isn't "selfish," because it has no mind to formulate "wants," yet it is still being "a rock." The correct answer is not selfishness vs unselfishness, but rather the reality of being in our unaffected or affected state. You may be unaffected and a giver, or you may be affected and a taker. You may be unaffected and a taker, or you may be affected and a giver. It's not the positive/negative you question, but the existence of a perpendicular positive/negative. 2x2=4, which represents the four Quadra.


Define it however you want, my only point is that people act with self-interest.

How they act is what you're talking about, but not what I was talking about and not particularly of interest to me anymore, as I've moved on to other things these days.


----------



## Serpent

Jeremy8419 said:


> Also, you're missing something... The only real self-interest is to be who we naturally are. Some people are naturally givers, and some are naturally takers. The opposition to this postulation is no different than "why is a rock a rock?" It isn't "selfish," because it has no mind to formulate "wants," yet it is still being "a rock." The correct answer is not selfishness vs unselfishness, but rather the reality of being in our unaffected or affected state. You may be unaffected and a giver, or you may be affected and a taker. You may be unaffected and a taker, or you may be affected and a giver. It's not the positive/negative you question, but the existence of a perpendicular positive/negative. 2x2=4, which represents the four Quadra.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Abraxas said:


> I did. It makes sense, but it strikes me as an over-indulgence of the ideas that make up the basis of Socionics. It's not wrong, just, unnecessary (at least for me), except on paper, where it might be useful to someone who wanted to ride the train as far as it will go.
> 
> I tend to go the other direction. More abstract, rather than more specific. I don't need rules to follow, and I find highly defined, systematic ways of going things impedes my own creativity and insight most of the time. I only need "the gist" of something, and that's fine.
> 
> Although, I will say that your images served that purpose very well. I got the gist from them, much better than I did from trying to read that translated article. Those images were way more useful in that regard, for understanding the basis of the model. I appreciate that you took the time to make them. Thank you.


Wow. Thank you for the response. I knew you wouldn't actually be interested in it, but @ 'd you, because it did seem to answer your questions about the translation. Bukalov's common symbol is the yin-yang one. If the picture i drew was correct, then I would certainly understand the reasons for his symbol.

I understand what you mean about general to specific. I originally thought to have another square with just a dot in the center and the word "humanity" over it.

The humanistic purpose of such was that it takes socionics ad turns it into a point, which solves a problem with true A.I. The issue with A.I. is that it cannot appropriately collapse upon itself. The drawing served that purpose, at least from Socionics perspective. If all aspects of reality could be reduced to the 8 information aspects, then it would serve as a prototype for A.I.

If you find some insight with your creativity about the image, please let me know.

Totally horned out right now lol. ILIs are freaking badass lol.


----------



## Jeremy8419

ildiavolo said:


>


Sorry. Totally don't know what that means. If you have "in practice" information to spare, please do.


----------



## Abraxas

Entropic said:


> No, you are right, but then you speak of very large modern societies that we have now. As I reiterated, I am not sure I think there is any real model that can work and do it well with societies on the scales we have today, where we have multi-million cities housing as many people as certain countries alone. This is because as I wrote, governance becomes too abstract and far away from the people. It would be easier with more local politics and freedom on a local scale only but that is not possible when we have to deal with something as abstract as a nation-state, because what may be a good idea for one city, may not be so good for another. Much of the governmental work is to come up with ways of how to balance the interests of all these different peoples. I can take Sweden as an example here, and how the inclusion and the rights of the Sami (the local native population) often goes contrary to the interests of the city development and the desire for continued urbanization (and why is this even desired or seen as an ideal?). Similarly, we see that in Värmland which is one of the most central-western counties with a very large wolf population, there is an increasing number of wolf attacks and wolf spottings near people's homes; the ruling bodies in Stockholm have banned any hunting on the wolf because it is deemed a threatened species, which goes against the local farmers in Värmland whose cattle is subject to wolf attacks which obviously hurts their ability for livelihood and sustenance. One wants to shoot wolves, another want to preserve them. It is impossible to reconcile this kind of conflict. Imagine if the county of Värmland was entirely autonomous; they would decide that they can shoot wolf no matter what the rest of the world thinks and be done with it. However, because Värmland is under government control as a part of the nation-state of Sweden, Värmland has to follow the major ruling body in Stockholm first.
> 
> 
> 
> Possible, but again, do people themselves know what is the best for the people? I think it is naive to think that people always know what is the best for them, especially when said people have to make decisions that don't just affect themselves and those nearby to them, but an entire country. Do you think the rich know what is the best for them regarding the poor in the country? Probably not. As you said yourself, humans tend to be intrinsically selfish in this way and the rich will attempt to retain its status quo in order to distribute resources and keep it among the rich. Why? Because it benefits them, obviously. This is why we are seeing the uprise of gated societies. I mean, this is essentially just Foucault and discourse theory 101.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are right, but it does assume people's values reflect the goodwill of all peoples. Unfortunately, it doesn't. You can't say the German people during WWII reflected the goodwill of all peoples when it so clearly discriminated against not just the Jews, but the disabled, homosexuals and all other groups deemed to be deviant or fit into the category of Other. Again, it is easy to do it that way because it retains the status quo and who has power in any given society. Power distribution is never fair. As a part of several minority groups though I am of course entitled by being parts of others, I am more than aware of this.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I agree, which is why I stressed that dictatorship is something I hold as an ideal in theory, but I am unsure how we'll it'd work in practice because as you note, it has never worked well in history. However, then again, what kind of dictatorship are we speaking about? Is the chief who rules over a native tribe a dictator?
> 
> I think the problem with your post is that you seem to posit present-day reality with present-day modern societies and social structure; I do not hold this as ideal. I think we need to move away from this, do we want to survive as a species. If not for the very sake of resource scarcity, which will become an increasing problem in the future. I posit small-scale societies that have much more independent ruling power, rather than an increasingly abstract governing body that is supposed to deal with EVERYTHING and EVERYONE. Look at the UN, for example. What exactly does the UN ultimately accomplish? Not much. Countries can't even decide what a reasonable greenhouse gas emission is. The industrial world claims that the developing world need to use better green technology and invest in green technology, but this costs money. The developing world, and fairly so, argues that it is the developed world that put them in the place they are right now to begin with and if they are also equally going to enforce the idea that the developing world needs to develop in order to take care of its peoples, then they need to access and use cheaper means of production because they cannot afford to buy a nano-tech factory to produce goods that they sell back to the developed world. They are essentially asking the developed world to share more of its resources and pay for some of the new tech. Do you think the developed world is going to cough up that money? Of course not. That money is what helps the developed world stay developed. This is why no one buys goods from the developed world to begin with, because it's too damn expensive to produce. I mean, the USA has still yet to sign the Kyoto Protocol, lol. One major reason why, is likely due to how much power the fossil fuels lobbyists have. If USA won't, why should anyone else do it?
> 
> And this perspective is just looking at it globally. We could also look at it more locally and study how the same issues arise within a country, and then within a city. Take ghettos in New York as an example of this. The rights of those peoples cannot be reconciled with the rights of the richer neighborhoods. What is good and required in order for the ghetto to stop being a ghetto doesn't always work given the city planning for the rest of the city. To un-ghetto-ify a neighborhood would require huge monetary investments and structural changes that would need to be done both long- and short-term, and at the same time you got the rich people yelling behind you that you need to create that supermall for them because it will drive more investors to the city, which at the same time is going to centralize production and the resource availability of goods even further away from the ghetto, thus increasingly lowering its status and segregating the city as a whole. You won't be able to build that supermall within any close vicinity of the ghetto, that's for sure, even though that would be a great way to at least help to raise the status of the neighborhood and generate some form of income outside of illegal activities for the people living there.


I think you're essentially ahead of the curve here, and putting the cart before the horse. As @_Zamyatin_ points out, people inevitably project their own self-interests onto the world, and the world turns accordingly.

Right now, the trend in human history, for as far back as human "society" has existed, is centralization. Disparate individuals, groups, and now nations, come together to form larger political bodies, and in doing so share a larger pool of resources to exploit. Globalization is what that gets called these days, but it's nothing new. It's the same basic survival mechanism that called early tribes to form the first civilizations, and it's as much about necessity today as it was back then. Competition for things that are scarce, due to the limits of technology, force small bodies of individuals to fuse into larger ones, and the result is that eventually (if not already) everything fuses into a single social entity.

When that happens, then you will have all the eggs in one proverbial basket. All the wealth of all the wealthy and all the powerful class members will hold all the cards and establish their absolute authority.

And then you will have your dictator that you want.

Your Grand CEO of Planet Earth Inc.

Unless that One-Almighty-Dictator, and his administrative ruling body that he controls is, out of necessity, altruistic and generous enough to maintain civil peace through sufficient bread and circuses, sufficient inebriation and sedation of the population, the globally united people of this entire earth will start to _feel_ unequal and we will face another world war.

In the end, the question is, how much poverty is too much poverty?

There are two kinds of people. People who need power, who need tremendous amounts of wealth, to feel satisfied with their existence, because they have some kind of personality type, some kind of psychology, that drives them to such ends. And then there are people who are content with a measure of wealth, to some degree, no more and no less - which is where things get granular - exactly how much are you willing to "settle" for? What's your selling point?

Society comes to an understanding of this "price signal" automatically. It just happens on its own. It's foolish to assume that the whole species, as one _thing_, isn't following its nature, as defined _by nature itself. _We are incapable of doing "the wrong thing" if you look at it like that. If you just step back, then _whatever_ happens, that's how the universe works. It's just star stuff and gravity doing what it does. It's as soon as you introduce _consciousness_ into the picture that things become askew and sapient morality is left on the table to examine.

So the real question isn't "what is right, what ought we to do" it's, "why are we sapient? why do we believe in morality at all?" The answer is obviously psychological. Something about how our brains works. We're wired up for it, somehow. Something is at work in our brains, and that becomes the basis for moral reasoning as we grow and mature, which gets influenced and shaped by our parents first, and then our peers later, but always by that basic nature we possess, some biological thing inside of it that created it to begin with.

What I find more interesting than sitting back and projecting my ego out, trying to decide what everyone is morally obligated to do, or what is right and what is wrong, is just being _realistic_ about what WILL happen _anyway_, regardless. And then planning for _that_. Instead of "what should I do?" being a moral question, it becomes a _strategic_ question, one asked in the same sense as "I need to get to work by 9am, so what should I do?" I want to look at reality and see what _is happening, what will happen_ and so forth, and then when I say "I believe in this or that", I don't mean because it's "morally right" - I mean because it _gets something done_. It causes to happen the thing that I want to happen. It is purely out of self-interest that I am generous, or kind, or compassionate, or whatever else - and it is the same with all human beings.

We delude ourselves into thinking that we can ever be "selfless" - but such a thing could only be possible if we were literally _unconscious_. Which would mean to be _ignorant_ of reality. If you are conscious, then you are acting with self-interest 100% of the time, and if you don't believe that, again I say you are literally delusional and thus unconscious of your own agency in everything that involves you.

I'm not saying this necessarily applies to you, but to whomever it applies, I say it is true of them, and it is worth taking a critical look at oneself to see if it does apply at any point, because like Jean Paul Sarte, I agree that, even if _choice_ is not free, _we_ are still free, in that our _will_ always exists, and although our will is not always _represented_, that does not mean that it isn't there. To believe otherwise is to act in "bad faith" as he puts it, and I agree.

The anguish that we feel when we experience our limitations is the very root of all self-deception.


----------



## Abraxas

Jeremy8419 said:


> The humanistic purpose of such was that it takes socionics ad turns it into a point, which solves a problem with true A.I. The issue with A.I. is that it cannot appropriately collapse upon itself. The drawing served that purpose, at least from Socionics perspective. If all aspects of reality could be reduced to the 8 information aspects, then it would serve as a prototype for A.I.


This is a good point. Yeah, it's like the idea that a model is always a simulation and the whole point of a simulation is that it omits information in order to convey only the essential building blocks for extrapolating the missing information as needed.

A perfect model of Socionics would just _be_ the dynamic between you and me, for instance. But something that abstract is hard for people to grasp intellectually, so they attempt to categorize it logically and systematize it while omitting one thing or another, and then arguing over what should or shouldn't be omitted.

That's why I take a pragmatic approach to the whole thing. For me, the value of the model is not it's "correctness" but the subjective value of its results after application. Like, whatever I get out of it - even if it serves no more of a purpose than entertainment - well, if it's REALLY entertaining, then that's still something, and so I like it better than another model that isn't (as long as that's the only thing we're comparing. In reality, there's all kinds of factors to consider, of which aesthetic is merely one, but certainly a big one for me at least).

Which, by the way, is why I thanked you for your picture. It helped me to understand Model B, even if it doesn't fundamentally alter my approach to my life or my paradigm. It still made me feel content, because I wanted to achieve that goal, and now I did, and so my brain rewards me for it, and I like that reward, so I am pleased, and I give you credit for it because you got me off.

So again, thanks.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Abraxas said:


> This is a good point. Yeah, it's like the idea that a model is always a simulation and the whole point of a simulation is that it omits information in order to convey only the essential building blocks for extrapolating the missing information as needed.
> 
> A perfect model of Socionics would just _be_ the dynamic between you and me, for instance. But something that abstract is hard for people to grasp intellectually, so they attempt to categorize it logically and systematize it while omitting one thing or another, and then arguing over what should or shouldn't be omitted.
> 
> That's why I take a pragmatic approach to the whole thing. For me, the value of the model is not it's "correctness" but the subjective value of its results after application. Like, whatever I get out of it - even if it serves no more of a purpose than entertainment - well, if it's REALLY entertaining, then that's still something, and so I like it better than another model that isn't (as long as that's the only thing we're comparing. In reality, there's all kinds of factors to consider, of which aesthetic is merely one, but certainly a big one for me at least).
> 
> Which, by the way, is why I thanked you for your picture. It helped me to understand Model B, even if it doesn't fundamentally alter my approach to my life or my paradigm. It still made me feel content, because I wanted to achieve that goal, and now I did, and so my brain rewards me for it, and I like that reward, so I am pleased, and I give you credit for it because you got me off.
> 
> So again, thanks.


Well, socionics was created by deterministic thinking. There really isn't anything "new" to be had there. For the ILE's, it lets them logically understand relationships. For myself, it lets me give descriptions for why I understand relationships. However, in the end, it's only describing what is present, which is why I think that your type, which creates, will ultimately find no value in it.

Something of important note is... You are fairly certain of your type, and "certain" is just a qualifier of probability. I seemingly have no real effect or intrinsic value to you; however, my attraction to your writing and a few others writing is fairly apparent. If you and I are both right, then it is described via benefit relations; however, if you and I are wrong, there is no equivocal relation between our possible other types as you alpha and me beta. There is no similar description for that anywhere in socion... None. The primary argument however is readily plausible.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> Why do you believe they are pertinent?
> 
> 
> Well, the first sentence was part of wikisocion, and it does apply, since it references the two being different things. Lost a sentence on page reload. This was supposed to be there: "Information aspects represent an attempt to divide information into 8 different kinds." E.g., distance between objects, mass, inertia, intermolecular forces, perspective, chemical reactions. Each of these things, and everything else in existence corresponds to an information aspect. Place what basic principles and properties of the various aspects (classical word usage) of existence align to the information aspect of Fi. These exist independently of the existence of living organisms.


Uhm, you type as a delta NF but you don't see how human suffering is a pertinent issue to discuss, nor the subject of how to reduce suffering in society? Legit. I didn't ask you to answer because I think it's pertinent, but because I wanted to see how capable you are to discuss the issue at such a greater dimensionality than what we supposedly have had. And I think it's pertinent because basic human empathy propels me to want to improve people's happiness. That's really how simple it is. Are you suggesting you are devoid of empathy? You are the one who keeps insisting empathy is a unique property of Fi.

And yes, aspects divide reality in 8 different ways... Because that's what the IMs do. When you have lead Ni, you evidently see reality different from lead Ti. So essentially, you seem to think that aspect is the worldview of the TIM. That was so easy, now, wasn't it? I don't make that distinction as it seems like needless nitpicking. It's really just one and the same. You value Fi as an IE, so you also see the world differently from someone who values Fe. I already answered that difference in my previous post where I defined Fi and Fe. I mentioned plenty of how the types conceptualize reality. In fact, I find that far more interesting to understand than defining element vs aspect apart. You would have to offer a definition of element and how that relates to the functions vis-a-vis aspect here.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> Uhm, you type as a delta NF but you don't see how human suffering is a pertinent issue to discuss, nor the subject of how to reduce suffering in society? Legit. I didn't ask you to answer because I think it's pertinent, but because I wanted to see how capable you are to discuss the issue at such a greater dimensionality than what we supposedly have had. And I think it's pertinent because basic human empathy propels me to want to improve people's happiness. That's really how simple it is. Are you suggesting you are devoid of empathy? You are the one who keeps insisting empathy is a unique property of Fi.


The point of the discussion past my few initial comments in the thread was to see how information passed through dimensionalities. Y'all are objectifying people and doing so with interest. Of 4D Fi information passed to you, you would only be capable of processing the 2D portions, and only the ones in which people are objectified to your desires. I, on the other hand, will personify 2D objects by desire.



> And yes, aspects divide reality in 8 different ways... Because that's what the IMs do. When you have lead Ni, you evidently see reality different from lead Ti. So essentially, you seem to think that aspect is the worldview of the TIM. That was so easy, now, wasn't it? I don't make that distinction as it seems like needless nitpicking. It's really just one and the same. You value Fi as an IE, so you also see the world differently from someone who values Fe. I already answered that difference in my previous post where I defined Fi and Fe. I mentioned plenty of how the types conceptualize reality. In fact, I find that far more interesting to understand than defining element vs aspect apart. You would have to offer a definition of element and how that relates to the functions vis-a-vis aspect here.


Previous quote made me realize there will never be any answers you consciously give which interest me or are of value to me. My strengths and desires are to personify, to endlessly view fields of fields of fields, but you will continually objectify things on the level you desire.

Anyways, gracias por los answeros. I now have much better Ti behind my Fi about the nature of your personality and dopplegangers irl.


----------



## Abraxas

@Entropic, I'm not sure that a lead Ni type would see reality any differently from a lead Ti type. Rather, because both functions are 4D, they would see things the same way, but differ in their approach to the same information. Because the Ti-lead doesn't place as much importance on the Ni-side of the information, and instead creates with Ne, and the Ni-lead doesn't place as much importance on Ti-stuff, and instead creates with Te. Maybe the _apparent_ difference is in the way they create, and so we can only indirectly infer how they must perceive reality based on that. I know, for instance, that I actually get along great with Ti-types, at least initially, but after awhile they just want to go on and on, and I get bored of it. I assume they must feel mutually the same about me, when I start abstracting about a process happening in time, which to them is merely the building blocks of a new conceptual model, and I'd rather just keep inventing raw conceptual material than actually build a theory out of it. Maybe that leads them to assume that I don't recognize those theories, but that's not really the case. I do absolutely see where they are going with it, but I just don't feel the excitement they do over it.

I wouldn't say, for example, that I'm any worse off at differentiating how granular conceptual categories and systems can be when it comes time to properly label and discuss a complex theory, for instance. It's just that it drains me to do it for too long. I don't mind doing it out of necessity, but it runs cross-purpose to my lead function, Ni. I can do the same thing with Ni, essentially, that I would do with Ti. Where Ti is a directed logical approach, and Ni is feels more "organic" and natural to me, allowing the theories to emerge over time on their own, as needed. Ni is just "easier" for me, as well as very reliable for me. If it wasn't, I probably wouldn't value it over Ti, and instead I'd have to rely more heavily on Ti to make up the difference. That's why I would confuse the two a lot in the past, I think, until you helped me to sort it out. Because I'm more interested in "what does this cause," than, "what could it be?"


----------



## Entropic

Abraxas said:


> @Entropic, I'm not sure that a lead Ni type would see reality any differently from a lead Ti type. Rather, because both functions are 4D, they would see things the same way, but differ in their approach to the same information. Because the Ti-lead doesn't place as much importance on the Ni-side of the information, and instead creates with Ne, and the Ni-lead doesn't place as much importance on Ti-stuff, and instead creates with Te. Maybe the _apparent_ difference is in the way they create, and so we can only indirectly infer how they must perceive reality based on that. I know, for instance, that I actually get along great with Ti-types, at least initially, but after awhile they just want to go on and on, and I get bored of it. I assume they must feel mutually the same about me, *when I start abstracting about a process happening in time, which to them is merely the building blocks of a new conceptual model, and I'd rather just keep inventing raw conceptual material than actually build a theory out of it.* Maybe that leads them to assume that I don't recognize those theories, but that's not really the case. I do absolutely see where they are going with it, but I just don't feel the excitement they do over it.
> 
> I wouldn't say, for example, that I'm any worse off at differentiating how granular conceptual categories and systems can be when it comes time to properly label and discuss a complex theory, for instance. It's just that it drains me to do it for too long. I don't mind doing it out of necessity, but it runs cross-purpose to my lead function, Ni. I can do the same thing with Ni, essentially, that I would do with Ti. Where Ti is a directed logical approach, and Ni is feels more "organic" and natural to me, allowing the theories to emerge over time on their own, as needed. Ni is just "easier" for me, as well as very reliable for me. If it wasn't, I probably wouldn't value it over Ti, and instead I'd have to rely more heavily on Ti to make up the difference. That's why I would confuse the two a lot in the past, I think, until you helped me to sort it out. Because I'm more interested in "what does this cause," than, "what could it be?"


But your first paragraph supports my point; you do see it differently. You have a different focus. You want different things in life. Getting along is not the same as seeing reality the same. There's a world of difference between rational and an irrational, even if both of your lead elements are supposed to be 4D. 4D only supposes how you can metabolize information, but it doesn't suppose how it shapes your world.

You're talking about the process of creation, but not necessarily the vision that instigates that process. And well, I never felt such affinity to Ti as you do. I always felt more affinity towards Fi. I understand Ti types reasonably well and alpha NTs can be great conversation partners but only up to a point; it is obvious we see the world differently. Conscious Ti is a very different way to approach and understand the world compared to Ni.


----------



## Abraxas

Entropic said:


> But your first paragraph supports my point; you do see it differently... ~


I think that this is merely a semantic argument due to the ambiguity of the word "see". I still don't agree with you, so allow me to clarify what I meant. Hopefully we'll be on the same page now though.

When I say "see" I mean literally seeing something in front of me with my eyeballs, as in eyesight, vision - to SEE something. I mean "see" as in, I literally "see" the same concepts, the same models, the same theories, the same ideas as a lead Ti type. Therefore, I do not see things differently as a Ti-lead.

You're talking about choices. What do I do with what I see? Choices are choices, not information. There's a difference between perception and judgment, yes. The fact that I want something else for myself doesn't mean I "see" things differently, it just means I choose different things. The difference is in what form of judgment is valued, which means we make different choices, but it doesn't mean I can't, or don't, differentiate the same perceptions as a Ti-lead, or that a Ti-lead can't, or won't, differentiate the same perceptions I have.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Point of information...
Leading function isn't the only one that accepts information. All of them accept information, and do so from sources both external to the psyche and internal to the psyche. The order processing is different between them, and the brevity and clarity of information received is different between them.


----------



## Entropic

Abraxas said:


> I think that this is merely a semantic argument due to the ambiguity of the word "see". I still don't agree with you, so allow me to clarify what I meant. Hopefully we'll be on the same page now though.
> 
> When I say "see" I mean literally seeing something in front of me with my eyeballs, as in eyesight, vision - to SEE something. I mean "see" as in, I literally "see" the same concepts, the same models, the same theories, the same ideas as a lead Ti type. Therefore, I do not see things differently as a Ti-lead.
> 
> You're talking about choices. What do I do with what I see? Choices are choices, not information. There's a difference between perception and judgment, yes. The fact that I want something else for myself doesn't mean I "see" things differently, it just means I choose different things. The difference is in what form of judgment is valued, which means we make different choices, but it doesn't mean I can't, or don't, differentiate the same perceptions as a Ti-lead, or that a Ti-lead can't, or won't, differentiate the same perceptions I have.


Sure, we all see the same information or in the very least, are privy to the same information, but it doesn't mean that we interpret or understand it the same. Yes, you can say conscious choice makes a difference, but isn't that what cognition is? It is a conscious preference to see the world a certain way over all other ways? Can I choose or try to see it differently? Yes. Does it mean that I will or do? No. The fact you choose to phrase yourself this way, or communicate the way you do, over all other ways, does suggest that you do not see it the same. See at how Jeremy communicates. It's a very different kind of communication and belies how he sees reality compared to you. If we all were capable of seeing it the same or understand it the same, we wouldn't have the communication problems we have, nor would there be much legitimacy to intertype.

I already wrote elsewhere that I do not believe humans are capable of observing objective reality. It means we must necessarily also interpret it, which means that none of us will see it exactly the same.



Jeremy8419 said:


> The point of the discussion past my few initial comments in the thread was to see how information passed through dimensionalities. Y'all are objectifying people and doing so with interest. Of 4D Fi information passed to you, you would only be capable of processing the 2D portions, and only the ones in which people are objectified to your desires. I, on the other hand, will personify 2D objects by desire.


Except when you are logically analyzing, you aren't showcasing any kind of ethics whatsoever. This paragraph here is logic, not ethics. Showcase how you'd deal with the same information differently. How would you deal with world poverty for example? And no, I cannot say I think I am objectifying people. Actually, out of all the participants involved, I was the one who spoke the most staunchly from the perspective of the individual and their needs and desires. 



> Previous quote made me realize there will never be any answers you consciously give which interest me or are of value to me. My strengths and desires are to personify, to endlessly view fields of fields of fields, but you will continually objectify things on the level you desire.
> 
> Anyways, gracias por los answeros. I now have much better Ti behind my Fi about the nature of your personality and dopplegangers irl.


You may drop the patronization. Should I go quote what Night Huntress just wrote?



> You seem to think typing as EII gives you a free pass to undermine the "ethical" judgments of anyone with theoretically lower Fi than you. This is typism, and these things aren't required in a civil discussion.


If you have better Fi, then why do you refuse to engage the subject and offer an actual opinion of how to reduce the human suffering in the world? There's a reason there are questions in the Fi block in the 80 questions questionnaire that ask how one for example improves the morality or moral situation of the world/society, and whether the whole suffering of the world is equal or inferior the suffering of one child.


----------



## Abraxas

Entropic said:


> Sure, we all see the same information or in the very least, are privy to the same information, but it doesn't mean that we interpret or understand it the same. Yes, you can say conscious choice makes a difference, but isn't that what cognition is? It is a conscious preference to see the world a certain way over all other ways? Can I choose or try to see it differently? Yes. Does it mean that I will or do? No. The fact you choose to phrase yourself this way, or communicate the way you do, over all other ways, does suggest that you do not see it the same. See at how Jeremy communicates. It's a very different kind of communication and belies how he sees reality compared to you. If we all were capable of seeing it the same or understand it the same, we wouldn't have the communication problems we have, nor would there be much legitimacy to intertype.


I think it's just a two-step process. Information goes in, information comes out.

I think that, and for the record I'm strictly discussing Ti-lead vs Ni-lead, because in these specific two types, both Ti and Ni are "4D", that means we both have 4D Ni. That means the same information "goes in" for both of us, only, for me it goes in consciously most of the time, and for them it goes in unconsciously most of the time.

I think what you're recognizing is that conscious vs unconscious disparity. The Ti-lead isn't normally aware of the _fact_ that he is taking in information from a Ni-perspective, until it gets brought up. And then, because it's so immediately obvious, he doesn't find it to be particularly important to dwell on past the initial excitement of the realization. And vica-versa for me. I find Ni-perception to be the most exciting and satisfying thing in the world, and so I'm mostly conscious of it all the time.

I wouldn't confuse this for a different world-view. I've never found it to be the case that I don't 100% recognize all the same things in reality that a Ti-lead does, for instance. The only difference is that I don't _care_ about the same things as a Ti-lead. But again, this does not mean I don't "see" and _perceive_ exactly the same thing as a Ti-lead. We both see eye-to-eye, but the _goals and motives_ of a Ti-lead are very different from my own, and that _difference of judgment_ becomes very obvious after a while.



Entropic said:


> I already wrote elsewhere that I do not believe humans are capable of observing objective reality. It means we must necessarily also interpret it, which means that none of us will see it exactly the same.


That's the point of a model. Models omit details, and convey only the algorithm needed to generate those details yourself. That's what our brains _do_. Some people need models that omit less and have a lot more detail because they can't generate a reliable set of information from a minimal set of rules, whereas other people can work with more abstract models and don't need clearly defined systems to tell them what to do, because they're just naturally good at making predictions that happen to be very reliable in practice.

Anyway, I think this is enough Ti-debate for me right now. I don't think this discussion is really going to progress any further because we're both being influenced by other factors that have nothing to do with the validity of what the other person is saying, and we should just take a break. This is what I mean about getting tired quickly of engaging in Ti sorts of categorization and nit-picking/cherry picking from pools of information to prove a point. It just doesn't interest me.

You and I both know that we're talking about the same thing right now, but you want to categorize it differently, and I think I know why, but I don't think it would be polite to mention it here. If you're curious, you could IM me I suppose, but I think you should wait at least a week before you do, so that you've forgotten about all of this and it's no longer spinning the same wheels in your brain.


----------



## Entropic

Abraxas said:


> I think you're essentially ahead of the curve here, and putting the cart before the horse. As @_Zamyatin_ points out, people inevitably project their own self-interests onto the world, and the world turns accordingly.
> 
> Right now, the trend in human history, for as far back as human "society" has existed, is centralization. Disparate individuals, groups, and now nations, come together to form larger political bodies, and in doing so share a larger pool of resources to exploit. Globalization is what that gets called these days, but it's nothing new. It's the same basic survival mechanism that called early tribes to form the first civilizations, and it's as much about necessity today as it was back then. Competition for things that are scarce, due to the limits of technology, force small bodies of individuals to fuse into larger ones, and the result is that eventually (if not already) everything fuses into a single social entity.


I'd argue centralization is an effect because of resource scarcity and that people tend to organize where resources are naturally found and in the greatest quality and quality of them. This is perfectly fine when societies are small, and makes perfect sense seeing how hunter-gatherers had to move around depending on resource availability. The problem began with the advent of agricture. Hunter-gatherer societies were for most of the part, far more egalitarian. Agriculture, however, centralized resource production in a way put the power structures we see now in place:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...r-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways



> When that happens, then you will have all the eggs in one proverbial basket. All the wealth of all the wealthy and all the powerful class members will hold all the cards and establish their absolute authority.
> 
> And then you will have your dictator that you want.
> 
> Your Grand CEO of Planet Earth Inc.


You won't answer the question whether you think the chief of a tribe fulfills the role of a dictator, or not? 



> Unless that One-Almighty-Dictator, and his administrative ruling body that he controls is, out of necessity, altruistic and generous enough to maintain civil peace through sufficient bread and circuses, sufficient inebriation and sedation of the population, the globally united people of this entire earth will start to _feel_ unequal and we will face another world war.


You assume the ethics of the dictator must by necessity be driven by selfishness or immorality for simply being a dictator. I disagree. Monarchs could also fit the definition of a dictator since monarchs often had supreme ruling power, but history does show that not every monarch was a power hungry psychopath. 



> In the end, the question is, how much poverty is too much poverty?


Isn't the question, what is poverty? Poverty becomes poverty based on where you draw the line of what poverty entails. Currently, poverty is a standard used to describe people who make less money than what they need in order to self-sustain themselves, or have a wage/income below minimum wage. 



> There are two kinds of people. People who need power, who need tremendous amounts of wealth, to feel satisfied with their existence, because they have some kind of personality type, some kind of psychology, that drives them to such ends. And then there are people who are content with a measure of wealth, to some degree, no more and no less - which is where things get granular - exactly how much are you willing to "settle" for? What's your selling point?


See my link about hunter-gatherers being egalitarian. Can't an argument be made that such personalities or structures are encouraged in western society, as opposed to hunter-gatherer societies? 



> Society comes to an understanding of this "price signal" automatically. It just happens on its own. It's foolish to assume that the whole species, as one _thing_, isn't following its nature, as defined _by nature itself. _We are incapable of doing "the wrong thing" if you look at it like that. If you just step back, then _whatever_ happens, that's how the universe works. It's just star stuff and gravity doing what it does. It's as soon as you introduce _consciousness_ into the picture that things become askew and sapient morality is left on the table to examine.


What is nature? What does it mean to follow one's nature? Human culture, upbringing, values, being able to adopt these things, is a part of our nature too, because our brains allow us to cognize reality in this particular way. 



> So the real question isn't "what is right, what ought we to do" it's, "why are we sapient? why do we believe in morality at all?" The answer is obviously psychological. Something about how our brains works. We're wired up for it, somehow. Something is at work in our brains, and that becomes the basis for moral reasoning as we grow and mature, which gets influenced and shaped by our parents first, and then our peers later, but always by that basic nature we possess, some biological thing inside of it that created it to begin with.


No, I think your questions are misleading. It is not "why are we saptient?" but "is sapience a part of our nature?" and further, if "nature allows us our sapience and it is natural for us to be sapient, then it is also natural for us to be moral". 



> What I find more interesting than sitting back and projecting my ego out, trying to decide what everyone is morally obligated to do, or what is right and what is wrong, is just being _realistic_ about what WILL happen _anyway_, regardless. And then planning for _that_. Instead of "what should I do?" being a moral question, it becomes a _strategic_ question, one asked in the same sense as "I need to get to work by 9am, so what should I do?" I want to look at reality and see what _is happening, what will happen_ and so forth, and then when I say "I believe in this or that", I don't mean because it's "morally right" - I mean because it _gets something done_. It causes to happen the thing that I want to happen. It is purely out of self-interest that I am generous, or kind, or compassionate, or whatever else - and it is the same with all human beings.
> 
> We delude ourselves into thinking that we can ever be "selfless" - but such a thing could only be possible if we were literally _unconscious_. Which would mean to be _ignorant_ of reality. If you are conscious, then you are acting with self-interest 100% of the time, and if you don't believe that, again I say you are literally delusional and thus unconscious of your own agency in everything that involves you.


Do, we though? Altruism is factually supported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism#Neurobiology



> I'm not saying this necessarily applies to you, but to whomever it applies, I say it is true of them, and it is worth taking a critical look at oneself to see if it does apply at any point, because like Jean Paul Sarte, I agree that, even if _choice_ is not free, _we_ are still free, in that our _will_ always exists, and although our will is not always _represented_, that does not mean that it isn't there. To believe otherwise is to act in "bad faith" as he puts it, and I agree.
> 
> The anguish that we feel when we experience our limitations is the very root of all self-deception.


By anguish, you mean existential anxiety? I am not much of an existentialist in that regard. My preferred existentialism is much closer to the western esoteric traditions e.g. Crowley's, "do what you will shall be the whole of the law".


----------



## Jeremy8419

> You may drop the patronization. Should I go quote what Night Huntress just wrote?


Sorry. That wasn't patronizing. I'm just saying we have different strengths and weaknesses and that I don't think we will see eye-to-eye enough to have a mutually beneficial conversation.


----------



## Abraxas

@Entropic, why are you fighting all my categories and definitions?

You're not even responding to my points, you're responding to my words.

Why?

Nothing you said in that long response addressed a single point that I made. You literally rejected _every single thing I said_ in order, and gave me _nothing_, and by doing that, you've ended the discussion. You've removed the basis for any form of an agreement, and made it clear all you want to do is fight me.

That's really bad form dude. I'm sorry but I don't enjoy this at all the way you seem to. I was hoping we could find some common ground and mutual understanding.

I guess not. You don't seem to want to understand me at all, you just want everyone else to understand you.


----------



## Entropic

Abraxas said:


> I think it's just a two-step process. Information goes in, information comes out.
> 
> I think that, and for the record I'm strictly discussing Ti-lead vs Ni-lead, because in these specific two types, both Ti and Ni are "4D", that means we both have 4D Ni. That means the same information "goes in" for both of us, only, for me it goes in consciously most of the time, and for them it goes in unconsciously most of the time.
> 
> I think what you're recognizing is that conscious vs unconscious disparity. The Ti-lead isn't normally aware of the _fact_ that he is taking in information from a Ni-perspective, until it gets brought up. And then, because it's so immediately obvious, he doesn't find it to be particularly important to dwell on past the initial excitement of the realization. And vica-versa for me. I find Ni-perception to be the most exciting and satisfying thing in the world, and so I'm mostly conscious of it all the time.
> 
> I wouldn't confuse this for a different world-view. I've never found it to be the case that I don't 100% recognize all the same things in reality that a Ti-lead does, for instance. The only difference is that I don't _care_ about the same things as a Ti-lead. But again, this does not mean I don't "see" and _perceive_ exactly the same thing as a Ti-lead. We both see eye-to-eye, but the _goals and motives_ of a Ti-lead are very different from my own, and that _difference of judgment_ becomes very obvious after a while.


We all can recognize the same things, obviously. Yet it becomes obvious we do see things differently, understand it differently. That to me, is evident of a different worldview. You are essentially saying something like, just because Muslims and Christians are both based upon Judaism they understand their religion the same. I argue that they don't. While there are plenty of similarities, there are an equal amount of differences and I'd argue those differences matter. Take the differences between Fi and Ti alone, for example, despite both being Ji. 



> That's the point of a model. Models omit details, and convey only the algorithm needed to generate those details yourself. That's what our brains _do_. Some people need models that omit less and have a lot more detail because they can't generate a reliable set of information from a minimal set of rules, whereas other people can work with more abstract models and don't need clearly defined systems to tell them what to do, because they're just naturally good at making predictions that happen to be very reliable in practice.
> 
> Anyway, I think this is enough Ti-debate for me right now. I don't think this discussion is really going to progress any further because we're both being influenced by other factors that have nothing to do with the validity of what the other person is saying, and we should just take a break. This is what I mean about getting tired quickly of engaging in Ti sorts of categorization and nit-picking/cherry picking from pools of information to prove a point. It just doesn't interest me.
> 
> You and I both know that we're talking about the same thing right now, but you want to categorize it differently, and *I think I know why, but I don't think it would be polite to mention it here.* If you're curious, you could IM me I suppose, but I think you should wait at least a week before you do, so that you've forgotten about all of this and it's no longer spinning the same wheels in your brain.


Dude, just spill it out. I rather prefer outright honesty. I'm not very appreciate of the passive-aggressive approach you're using here.



> why are you fighting all my categories and definitions?
> 
> You're not even responding to my points, you're responding to my words.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Nothing you said in that long response addressed a single point that I made. You literally rejected every single thing I said in order, and gave me nothing, and by doing that, you've ended the discussion. You've removed the basis for any form of an agreement, and made it clear all you want to do is fight me.
> 
> That's really bad form dude. I'm sorry but I don't enjoy this at all the way you seem to. I was hoping we could find some common ground and mutual understanding.
> 
> I guess not. You don't seem to want to understand me at all, you just want everyone else to understand you.


It's a logical discussion about the nature of politics, what else am I supposed to say? I'm offering counter-arguments to your point. We are not in agreement on how we see things here, so naturally I'll assert what I think is the most logical and rational as an approach?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Point of information.
Ermak or someone or other states that the vital block isn't the unconscious, but is the preconscious.


----------



## Abraxas

Entropic said:


> We all can recognize the same things, obviously. Yet it becomes obvious we do see things differently, understand it differently. That to me, is evident of a different worldview. You are essentially saying something like, just because Muslims and Christians are both based upon Judaism they understand their religion the same. I argue that they don't. While there are plenty of similarities, there are an equal amount of differences and I'd argue those differences matter. Take the differences between Fi and Ti alone, for example, despite both being Ji.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, just spill it out. I rather prefer outright honesty. I'm not very appreciate of the passive-aggressive approach you're using here.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a logical discussion about the nature of politics, what else am I supposed to say? I'm offering counter-arguments to your point. We are not in agreement on how we see things here, so naturally I'll assert what I think is the most logical and rational as an approach?


Nah, we're not even on the same frequency at all.

Like I said, this is fruitless. You're stuck in a full-on Ti battle-mode and can't see yourself, which means you can't be told about it either.

I'm sorry but, we're done for now.


----------



## Entropic

Abraxas said:


> Nah, we're not even on the same frequency at all.
> 
> Like I said, this is fruitless. You're stuck in a full-on Ti battle-mode and can't see yourself, which means you can't be told about it either.
> 
> I'm sorry but, we're done for now.


Ok? I'd rather you explain to me exactly where I err'd and exactly what I did that contributed to such a perception from your end because I do not see the problem here, but I have a feeling you'll offer me no such thing. So it's up to you, really, but I do prefer some frankness and forthrightness here. I can be blunt and straightforward and I don't always see when I walk over toes, but people quipping about how their feet hurt but they won't tell me why they do isn't helping me, anyway.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> Wouldn't you need to figure it out to know what aspect of reality it is? Otherwise, you're just going by experiencing elements.


Missed a part here before, but anyway, I know it's Fi because my experience fits the definition of Fi, lol. I mean, it's pretty carbon cut copy, textbook example. Some things just feel right, others wrong, and depending on how it feels, I want to move closer or further away from it. 



Jeremy8419 said:


> Sorry. That wasn't patronizing. I'm just saying we have different strengths and weaknesses and that I don't think we will see eye-to-eye enough to have a mutually beneficial conversation.


Yes, it is patronizing because of how you belittle people based on their types and used type as an excuse of how to treat and deal with people. You already got an infraction for typism once; do you want another? You have no right to attack someone else based on their perceived type, including their supposed strengths and weaknesses. Dimensionality doesn't indicate skill as someone can improve the skill of use of a particular function and thus also, that IE. That is exactly the point of duality, to help us improve and protect our weak points. The only thing dimensionality suggests is an attempt to predict how good that person is, as a whole, at metabolizing that particular kind of information. However, if that person is constantly exposed to high level of metabolic content from e.g. their dual, that person will of course vastly and significantly improve in that particular area and how to deal with situations that require that function in life. The lack of dimensionality will mostly show up in their inflexibility to deal with situations outside of what they've been taught to deal with. 

You've been rude and dismissed all claims made about your lack of social grace. Again, if you really cared about Fi, cared about cultivating personal relationships and observing how you are very far, far away from everyone else right now, a spot you've put yourself into fyi and you keep alienating yourself too, by acting like you did, you'd offer an apology and would work on improving your behavior. Why? Because in your shoes, that's the right thing to do. Your constant dismissal of the relevance of this way of social interaction says plenty about you and how you really think. You want to get closer to people and feel accepted? You better step up the game and give your social faux pas some serious consideration whether it is helping you get where you want to be.


----------



## Jeremy8419

entropic said:


> Yes, it is patronizing because of how you incessantly belittle people based on their types and used type as an excuse of how to treat and deal with people. You already got an infraction for typism once; do you want another? You have no right to attack someone else based on their perceived type, including their supposed strengths and weaknesses.


I was saying that I wasn't intending to insult you with that post. I was pointing out that our values do not coincide, and that the strong functions we use for communication in our conscious are too different for us to have good or productive communication. It's wasting both of our time trying, so there is no reason to continue trying. There are better people on here for us each to talk to that we get along with better. I also said "sorry." That wasn't sarcasm. It was an actual sorry for miscommunication and leading you to think that post was a personal attack. Again, sorry. Now, let's go about our own businesses.


----------



## Zamyatin

Abraxas said:


> This is one of the wisest posts I've ever read in all the years I've spent browsing this forum.
> 
> You are right, we - including myself - do project the material conditions of our own existence outward. It's an over-extension of the ego. In fact, that idea - projection - seems to be at the root of a lot of my issues with all of these personality theories I've studied over the years, and why lately I've taken a step back and hardly participate in the shared-study of any of them anymore.
> 
> I'm not even sure I see it as being realistic to expect people to ever not act in their own self-interest. I wonder if, as a biological species, we actually possess that level of maturity in our neurology. Perhaps the capacity, but not the tendency? It does not seem like altruism is as common as self-indulgence to me, although that could also be me projecting. I'm not sure.


It's not even as if the drive to act on self-interest is really conscious most of the time. People associate with others that are very similar to them, so when people think of what it means to be "unselfish" they often think of helping the people around them. Thing is, helping people a lot like yourself means doing things that also further your self-interest, especially when we're talking about political issues. For example, if you are a blue collar industrial worker, most of your friends are probably also blue collar industrial workers. To a person in that setting, behaving "selfishly" would mean doing things that help you at the expense of your peers, while being "unselfish" would mean doing things that help blue collar workers. See where I'm going with this?

It's why I lost interest in debating about which set of politics is "right" a long time ago. Everybody has their reasoning for choosing their side, and there is no objectively "right" answer, just individual preferences and personal values. If we want to overgeneralize a bit, the left represents equality and the right represents individual autonomy. Both are perfectly good values. Who's to say which is better? The vast majority of people don't choose their political views because of some cold, calculated drive to get ahead at everybody else's expense. Usually they're just using their individual frame of reference to determine what they think feels right to them, and they don't really understand the "other side". And even if they did, the most basic political questions such as group vs individual, equality vs autonomy are not really ones with a "right" answer. In a way, it's like arguing over whether chocolate or vanilla ice cream is superior. In the end, some people prefer one type and some people prefer another, and there's not a lot more that can be said beyond that.

It's kind of a cliche to say that both sides have good points. Usually when someone says that, they're trying to argue that you should take the middle position. The thing is, the middle is just as bad (or good) a position as either extreme, or even some position off of the mainstream polarity. They're all representing opposing, irreconcilable agendas because there is a fundamental contradiction in society caused by limited resources. People have conflicting interests, and when conflicting interests meet unequal distribution of power, you get what you'll call either political progress or increasing oppression, depending on which side of the power imbalance you're on. Marx had the right idea when he recognized that the only way to end the class struggle was to ensure that everybody has the exact same interests (or more precisely to ensure that everybody's interest was to look out for each else's interest), because once that happens power would naturally disperse evenly across all of society and politics would become obsolete. The vagueness of how he expected this to come about and the attempts of his politically powerful followers to jumpstart the revolution before technology supported it ended up being the downfall of his left, though.

My sister and her family are entirely betas, and we clash over politics a lot. They're ideologues in the classic sense. They picked their political views and they believe their position is _objectively_, rather than _subjectively_, the right one. When they see people with different views, their reactions range from "oh you poor misguided soul" to "you're evil". They don't respect disagreement on issues because they don't care about sincerity of belief, but uniformity of belief in their "group". When I told them that I don't have strong political views of my own and for the most part I'm just out to try to make a good life for myself, they told me I was a corrupt capitalist and an exploiter because I "didn't care" about trying to help every poor person in the city, lol. 

I guess the irony of it all is despite the fact that I can intellectually understand why they care so much about being objectively right, there's also a fundamental moral disconnect that keeps that understanding from actually affecting things between us. So we learned a long time ago to avoid talking about politics, lol.


----------



## Jeremy8419

zamyatin said:


> They picked their political views and they believe their position is objectively, rather than subjectively, the right one.


Get them to say "my position is objective," then call them retarded for not realizing that "position" already entails subjectivity lol

Also, did your type change or am I imagining things? Nothing "behind this." I just could have sworn it was different before.


----------



## Abraxas

@Zamyatin,

I completely understand and totally agree. This is why I don't hold strong views when it comes to politics. Like, I have an opinion, and I can give a reason for my opinion, but I absolutely recognize that it's just one way to look at things, and someone else who comes at it from another angle is just as legitimate.

I'm detached like you, I think, because I see what you're talking about and I think not a lot of people (some of which are in this thread) see what you're saying, so they get "stuck" or caught up in it, and I simply don't identify with that kind of thing. Which is why I almost always avoid political discussions, or at least, when I do enter into them, I'm merely presenting one perspective for the sake of contrast to generate interesting conversation, not to "be right" in some kind of debate that almost always devolves rapidly into personal remarks and general bullshittery.


----------



## Jeremy8419

This conversation sounds an awful lot like merry vs serious lol. Everyone being entitled to their subjectivity versus everyone having subjectivity while there also exists universal truths. Y'all are stating y'all's universal truths.

And this post is aristocracy vs democracy lol. Betas place people into groups. Deltas recognize the existence of groups.


----------



## Abraxas

Jeremy8419 said:


> This conversation sounds an awful lot like merry vs serious lol. Everyone being entitled to their subjectivity versus everyone having subjectivity while there also exists universal truths. Y'all are stating y'all's universal truths.
> 
> And this post is aristocracy vs democracy lol. Betas place people into groups. Deltas recognize the existence of groups.


I think the difference is that I don't place my own innate skills at reasoning, moral or logical, ahead of the innate skill at reasoning of most people, and instead recognize that universal truth is derived out of the synthesis of many perspectives spread out over time, not simply my own individual subjective reasoning right here and now. Is that merry vs serious? I'm not familiar with all the dichotomies.

In any case, it's why I can't stand Ti/Fi-mode debates with people. People who become over-zealous about their individual subjective determinations rub me the wrong way and I get frustrated when they start declaring universals that dismiss all kinds of alternatives that I don't really have the time or the interest to make them aware of.

And that's really the bottom line. I'm not interested in proving them wrong by showing them all the information they're ignoring. In the end it makes no difference to me what they believe, as long as it doesn't have any effect on my life. And most of the time it doesn't, so I just ignore them. Better to just let them sort it out themselves and let the chips fall as they may, because even if they are right, if they don't do anything besides bitch at people on the internet while they sit around at home with no job, no family, and nothing to do with themselves, then honestly, who gives a shit what that kind of a person thinks.

_They basically don't exist._


----------



## Jeremy8419

abraxas said:


> recognize that universal truth is derived out of the synthesis of many perspectives spread out over time


Presence of universal truths is Serious, yes. My EII version, which is, perhaps, a root of all versions due to Fi being a determinant of the dichotomy, is that universal truths are the best-fit of all individuals' subjectivities as a whole. It's still a subjective stance, depending on the macro/micro level referenced. Typically, it would be humanity, but is present from within the self, up to one-on-one level, up to family level, up to social circle level, up to state/nation, up to humanity, up to all life, and onwards. Since you are Ni base, yours would be the dynamic version of this, which is different from reference of time, as both are 4D and can reference these independent of current time.

I don't keep up with normative philosophy/sociology/whatever, but I think your version may be called existentialism?


----------



## Abraxas

Jeremy8419 said:


> Presence of universal truths is Serious, yes. My EII version, which is, perhaps, a root of all versions due to Fi being a determinant of the dichotomy, is that universal truths are the best-fit of all individuals' subjectivities as a whole. It's still a subjective stance, depending on the macro/micro level referenced. Typically, it would be humanity, but is present from within the self, up to one-on-one level, up to family level, up to social circle level, up to state/nation, up to humanity, up to all life, and onwards. Since you are Ni base, yours would be the dynamic version of this, which is different from reference of time, as both are 4D and can reference these independent of current time.
> 
> I don't keep up with normative philosophy/sociology/whatever, but I think your version may be called existentialism?


Ah, okay. That makes a lot of sense. Yeah, it's definitely still subjective because we're talking about humanity, for sure. I guess you could even get granular (god I love the word "granular") with it and start to define the scope and depth of your awareness of history, present, and future in order to determine how much your own innate reasoning "echos" the innate reasoning of the whole race, thus determining the basis for a synthesis of a more universal truth.

But I digress, sorry. To answer your question, yes, I really love existentialism. It helps me to maintain enough self-awareness to put things into perspective in my life, instead of getting caught up in hubris and pride. Writers like Jean Paul Sarte, Camus, Heidegger, and Nietzsche contributed the bulk of it. Of all of them, I think Nietzsche has been a huge influence in my life, by getting me to realize that, while we can't ever really escape the act of placing subjective value on things, both as individuals and as a race, we can at least acknowledge that we dug our own graves in doing so, by admitting that the act of valuation is what produces the act of devaluation, which is the root of all our collective anguish and misery in life.

He was kind of a fucked up person though. I think he had a really rough childhood and ended up killing himself or something when he saw a horse being beaten.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Abraxas said:


> Ah, okay. That makes a lot of sense. Yeah, it's definitely still subjective because we're talking about humanity, for sure. I guess you could even get granular (god I love the word "granular") with it and start to define the scope and depth of your awareness of history, present, and future in order to determine how much your own innate reasoning "echos" the innate reasoning of the whole race, thus determining the basis for a synthesis of a more universal truth.
> 
> But I digress, sorry. To answer your question, yes, I really love existentialism. It helps me to maintain enough self-awareness to put things into perspective in my life, instead of getting caught up in hubris and pride. Writers like Jean Paul Sarte, Camus, Heidegger, and Nietzsche contributed the bulk of it. Of all of them, I think Nietzsche has been a huge influence in my life, by getting me to realize that, while we can't ever really escape the act of placing subjective value on things, both as individuals and as a race, we can at least acknowledge that we dug our own graves in doing so, by admitting that the act of valuation is what produces the act of devaluation, which is the root of all our collective anguish and misery in life.
> 
> He was kind of a fucked up person though. I think he had a really rough childhood and ended up killing himself or something when he saw a horse being beaten.


Yeah. Apparently normative Fi entails heavy utilization of having reference materials for human interaction topics, similar to how I tend to quote science sphere stuff. When I was younger, I looked into philosophy and sociology and such, but nothing I read gave me useful information, and seemed more like a convenience item because I would arrive at the same thoughts if I chose to spend time thinking on the specific subject at hand. My noticing people in thread referencing social writings heavily in this thread and that it was the Fi version of me referencing science is what caused me to derail the thread pages back.


----------



## Zamyatin

Abraxas said:


> I think the difference is that I don't place my own innate skills at reasoning, moral or logical, ahead of the innate skill at reasoning of most people, and instead recognize that universal truth is derived out of the synthesis of many perspectives spread out over time, not simply my own individual subjective reasoning right here and now. Is that merry vs serious? I'm not familiar with all the dichotomies.
> 
> In any case, it's why I can't stand Ti/Fi-mode debates with people. People who become over-zealous about their individual subjective determinations rub me the wrong way and I get frustrated when they start declaring universals that dismiss all kinds of alternatives that I don't really have the time or the interest to make them aware of.
> 
> And that's really the bottom line. I'm not interested in proving them wrong by showing them all the information they're ignoring. In the end it makes no difference to me what they believe, as long as it doesn't have any effect on my life. And most of the time it doesn't, so I just ignore them. Better to just let them sort it out themselves and let the chips fall as they may, because even if they are right, if they don't do anything besides bitch at people on the internet while they sit around at home with no job, no family, and nothing to do with themselves, then honestly, who gives a shit what that kind of a person thinks.
> 
> *They basically don't exist.*


To be honest, this sounds like type 9 nihilism far more than it does anything to do with socionics.

I intellectually recognize the subjectivity of ethics, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in the things I believe. I can look at a neo-Nazi protest and if I don't mind the discomfort I can imagine what they must be feeling and what lead them to believe what they do, but in the end, I still condemn it. Just because I recognize that my values are something personal and internal doesn't mean I feel I should violate or ignore them. Two soldiers facing off in a battleground may recognize that they are only shooting at each other because of some perverse twist of fate and in different settings they may well be best of friends, but they still have to kill each other.

Truth is objective, even if our interpretations of it are biased by our individual locations in life.


----------



## Blue Soul

Abraxas said:


> I think the difference is that I don't place my own innate skills at reasoning, moral or logical, ahead of the innate skill at reasoning of most people, and instead recognize that universal truth is derived out of the synthesis of many perspectives spread out over time, not simply my own individual subjective reasoning right here and now. Is that merry vs serious? I'm not familiar with all the dichotomies.
> 
> In any case, it's why I can't stand Ti/Fi-mode debates with people. People who become over-zealous about their individual subjective determinations rub me the wrong way and I get frustrated when they start declaring universals that dismiss all kinds of alternatives that I don't really have the time or the interest to make them aware of.
> 
> And that's really the bottom line. I'm not interested in proving them wrong by showing them all the information they're ignoring. In the end it makes no difference to me what they believe, as long as it doesn't have any effect on my life. And most of the time it doesn't, so I just ignore them. Better to just let them sort it out themselves and let the chips fall as they may, because even if they are right, if they don't do anything besides bitch at people on the internet while they sit around at home with no job, no family, and nothing to do with themselves, then honestly, who gives a shit what that kind of a person thinks.
> 
> _They basically don't exist._





Zamyatin said:


> To be honest, this sounds like type 9 nihilism far more than it does anything to do with socionics.
> 
> I intellectually recognize the subjectivity of ethics, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in the things I believe. I can look at a neo-Nazi protest and if I don't mind the discomfort I can imagine what they must be feeling and what lead them to believe what they do, but in the end, I still condemn it. Just because I recognize that my values are something personal and internal doesn't mean I feel I should violate or ignore them. Two soldiers facing off in a battleground may recognize that they are only shooting at each other because of some perverse twist of fate and in different settings they may well be best of friends, but they still have to kill each other.
> 
> Truth is objective, even if our interpretations of it are biased by our individual locations in life.


I can relate to what Abraxas says too, and I have 9 in my core. It's a peace with an objective outlook on everything.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Zamyatin's version sounds like existentialism subservient to practicality.


----------



## Kintsugi

I wonder how much cognitive/psychological compatibility really matters, these days. I feel that the ability to empathise and offer another person unconditional love far outweighs anything else.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The Perfect Storm said:


> I wonder how much cognitive/psychological compatibility really matters, these days. I feel that the ability to empathise and offer another person unconditional love far outweighs anything else.


Two flames eventually burn as one, if they are close enough. Socionics shows how close they are when they decide to start moving towards each other.

It doesn't offer anything to do such. It simply classifies relationships present.


----------



## Kintsugi

Jeremy8419 said:


> Two flames eventually burn as one, if they are close enough. Socionics shows how close they are when they decide to start moving towards each other.
> 
> It doesn't offer anything to do such. It simply classifies relationships present.


This is too simplified.

Humans are far more complex than that. And thank fucking hell they are (otherwise I'd get bored way too easily, lol).


----------



## Jeremy8419

The Perfect Storm said:


> This is too simplified.
> 
> Humans are far more complex than that. And thank fucking hell they are (otherwise I'd get bored way too easily, lol).


Which is simple? First paragraph or second?


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> This conversation sounds an awful lot like merry vs serious lol. Everyone being entitled to their subjectivity versus everyone having subjectivity while there also exists universal truths. Y'all are stating y'all's universal truths.
> 
> And this post is aristocracy vs democracy lol. Betas place people into groups. Deltas recognize the existence of groups.


I don't see how this is related to merry/serious at all, outside of the idea that discussing subjective values is a serious position to take, because it is motivated by Fi.



The Perfect Storm said:


> This is too simplified.
> 
> Humans are far more complex than that. And thank fucking hell they are (otherwise I'd get bored way too easily, lol).


lol, there's a Swedish proverb that literally goes: if there's heart space, there's ass space.


----------



## Kintsugi

Jeremy8419 said:


> Which is simple? First paragraph or second?


I disliked the overall symbolism/metaphor, I guess. It sounds nice, but it doesn't really reflect my experience/reality.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The Perfect Storm said:


> I disliked the overall symbolism/metaphor, I guess. It sounds nice, but it doesn't really reflect (my /experienced) reality.


Oh hahaha. I was just saying that shared interests and backgrounds and values and goals can make things easier at first, but in the end, commitment and effort are required for ongoing love. If you've both got that, cool beans.


----------



## Kintsugi

Entropic said:


> lol, there's a Swedish proverb that literally goes: if there's heart space, there's ass space.


LOL, I like that proverb. xD



Jeremy8419 said:


> Oh hahaha. I was just saying that shared interests and backgrounds and values and goals can make things easier at first, but in the end, commitment and effort are required for ongoing love. If you've both got that, cool beans.


It's a certain kind commitment and effort, though. I'm not wholly convinced it's "type" related, but who knows.


----------



## Abraxas

Zamyatin said:


> To be honest, this sounds like type 9 nihilism far more than it does anything to do with socionics.
> 
> I intellectually recognize the subjectivity of ethics, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in the things I believe. I can look at a neo-Nazi protest and if I don't mind the discomfort I can imagine what they must be feeling and what lead them to believe what they do, but in the end, I still condemn it. Just because I recognize that my values are something personal and internal doesn't mean I feel I should violate or ignore them. Two soldiers facing off in a battleground may recognize that they are only shooting at each other because of some perverse twist of fate and in different settings they may well be best of friends, but they still have to kill each other.
> 
> Truth is objective, even if our interpretations of it are biased by our individual locations in life.


Yeah, I do the same thing. I can place myself in their shoes and walk around and by doing that I get an idea of what life might be like if things were different and maybe I'd think or feel differently about certain things, but then I come back to my side of the fence and remember who I really am and where I stand.

I don't think it's nihilistic to expect people to do something constructive though. That's existentialist for sure, but nihilism is a negative thing, a trend you want to avoid, where whatever you are doing is ultimately self-defeating. Being nihilistic is bad, lol. I kind of laugh every time I hear someone call themselves a "nihilist" or purport to believe in "nihilism" as a way of life.

I will admit though, it definitely reeks of unhealthy type 9s, a dark place I try very hard to never end up. So maybe I'm projecting my own expectations a bit, because I push myself a lot not to end up being a lazy piece of shit that never did anything. The point is, I don't respect anyone who is purely analytical without being constructive as well. Analysis and criticism is fine, but okay now offer a better solution. Most Ti-types especially, never take the time to fully organize their opinion to where they have anything useful to say, and just want to pick a fight.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The Perfect Storm said:


> LOL, I like that proverb. xD
> 
> It's a certain kind commitment and effort, though. I'm not wholly convinced it's "type" related, but who knows.


Well, the types all portray the various focus points and important issues of people, so what matters to you for a healthy relationship won't matter to some other people. Those focus points and important issues are described for the types in Socionics. Socionics isn't telling you, "hey go get with these people." It's just trying to explain why you tend to get with the people you do get with.

Socionics is really just like a map of relationships and personalities for people that aren't very good at navigating these things on their own. Tbh, I think it's slightly pointless for your type and mine, since Socionics says we already know our way around when dealing with people. It won't ever be complete to the point that it will be better than you or I simply dealing with people the way we normally do in real life. Only purpose it would have to either of us, at the end of the day, would be chatting with people who want their map to be better.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Abraxas said:


> Yeah, I do the same thing. I can place myself in their shoes and walk around and by doing that I get an idea of what life might be like if things were different and maybe I'd think or feel differently about certain things, but then I come back to my side of the fence and remember who I really am and where I stand.
> 
> I don't think it's nihilistic to expect people to do something constructive though. That's existentialist for sure, but nihilism is a negative thing, a trend you want to avoid, where whatever you are doing is ultimately self-defeating. Being nihilistic is bad, lol. I kind of laugh every time I hear someone call themselves a "nihilist" or purport to believe in "nihilism" as a way of life.
> 
> I will admit though, it definitely reeks of unhealthy type 9s, a dark place I try very hard to never end up. So maybe I'm projecting my own expectations a bit, because I push myself a lot not to end up being a lazy piece of shit that never did anything. The point is, I don't respect anyone who is purely analytical without being constructive as well. Analysis and criticism is fine, but okay now offer a better solution. Most Ti-types especially, never take the time to fully organize their opinion to where they have anything useful to say, and just want to pick a fight.


I don't know enneagram much, but isn't there like a "critic" one? Seems like 9+that would probably be nihilism.


----------



## Kintsugi

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, the types all portray the various focus points and important issues of people, so what matters to you for a healthy relationship won't matter to some other people. Those focus points and important issues are described for the types in Socionics. Socionics isn't telling you, "hey go get with these people." It's just trying to explain why you tend to get with the people you do get with.
> 
> Socionics is really just like a map of relationships and personalities for people that aren't very good at navigating these things on their own. Tbh, I think it's slightly pointless for your type and mine, since Socionics says we already know our way around when dealing with people. It won't ever be complete to the point that it will be better than you or I simply dealing with people the way we normally do in real life. Only purpose it would have to either of us, at the end of the day, would be chatting with people who want their map to be better.


You are merely preaching to the choir at this point. Been studying this stuff for a while. I like the idea of us all being mere "humans". 






I might sound like a lil cynical fuckward, but, who cares. I'm done with trying to put labels on people or place boundaries between myself and others. For me, all it does is perpetuate a dysfunctional mode of "separateness" and being.

If you can even call it that.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The Perfect Storm said:


> You are merely preaching to the choir at this point. Been studying this stuff for a while. I like the idea of us all being mere "humans".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I might sound like a lil cynical fuckward, but, who cares. I'm done with trying to put labels on people or place boundaries between myself and others. For me, all it does is perpetuate a dysfunctional mode of "separateness" and being.
> 
> If you can even call it that.


At work, so can't watch it now, but will later lol.

Ditto. Went over it a lot for like a week, then started going around typing people and such. Eventually came to the realization, I was already trying to date intra-Quadra, most attracted to duals, and was such for my entire life lol. If I'm already naturally doing it, wtf is the point of racking my brain trying to learn socionics for? Lol. Now I just do it to answer questions for people who want to be able to use their maps. Lol.


----------



## Kintsugi

Jeremy8419 said:


> At work, so can't watch it now, but will later lol.
> 
> Ditto. Went over it a lot for like a week, then started going around typing people and such. Eventually came to the realization, I was already trying to date intra-Quadra, most attracted to duals, and was such for my entire life lol. If I'm already naturally doing it, wtf is the point of racking my brain trying to learn socionics for? Lol. Now I just do it to answer questions for people who want to be able to use their maps. Lol.


What do you mean by "their maps" ?


----------



## Abraxas

The Perfect Storm said:


> You are merely preaching to the choir at this point. Been studying this stuff for a while. I like the idea of us all being mere "humans".
> 
> I might sound like a lil cynical fuckward, but, who cares. I'm done with trying to put labels on people or place boundaries between myself and others. For me, all it does is perpetuate a dysfunctional mode of "being".
> 
> If you can even call it that.


I don't think you sound like a cynical fuckward. I think you sound wise.

I mean, as much as I believe there are obvious differences between individuals, that doesn't mean we're not like... 99% the same when it comes down to it. I think people put way too much emphasis on the prevalence and importance of personality.

There's just nothing else really to talk about on this website besides personality theories I guess. It's easy to get the impression that the people who post here are the kind of person where the second they log off of here and go to the supermarket, they're standing in line thinking "WHAT PERSONALITY TYPE IS THIS ****** TAKING FOREVER WITH THE SMALL TALK. MAYBE THAT'S SOME FE SHIT. I HATE FE. FUCK SALT."


----------



## Jeremy8419

The Perfect Storm said:


> What do you mean by "their maps" ?


The thing from my post before, saying that Socionics is just a relationships and personalities map for people that aren't naturally good at understanding how to properly interact with people naturally.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Abraxas said:


> I don't think you sound like a cynical fuckward. I think you sound wise.
> 
> I mean, as much as I believe there are obvious differences between individuals, that doesn't mean we're not like... 99% the same when it comes down to it. I think people put way too much emphasis on the prevalence and importance of personality.
> 
> There's just nothing else really to talk about on this website besides personality theories I guess. It's easy to get the impression that the people who post here are the kind of person where the second they log off of here and go to the supermarket, they're standing in line thinking "WHAT PERSONALITY TYPE IS THIS ****** TAKING FOREVER WITH THE SMALL TALK. MAYBE THAT'S SOME FE SHIT. I HATE FE. FUCK SALT."


Yes... Yes... Activate those dual powers my minions...
_Sexiness is MINNNNNNEEEEE!!!!_


----------



## Kintsugi

Abraxas said:


> I don't think you sound like a cynical fuckward. I think you sound wise.
> 
> I mean, as much as I believe there are obvious differences between individuals, that doesn't mean we're not like... 99% the same when it comes down to it. I think people put way too much emphasis on the prevalence and importance of personality.
> 
> There's just nothing else really to talk about on this website besides personality theories I guess. It's easy to get the impression that the people who post here are the kind of person where the second they log off of here and go to the supermarket, they're standing in line thinking "WHAT PERSONALITY TYPE IS THIS ****** TAKING FOREVER WITH THE SMALL TALK. MAYBE THAT'S SOME FE SHIT. I HATE FE. FUCK SALT."


Thank you for validating me. It's a rarity and I welcome it with open arms.

I completely agree with you, and it fucking hurts (because I want to be the next Messiah like the next person, lol). I believe it's something we all want to see reflected back to us....


I could go on and on and on about emotional and spiritual abuse. I WANT to talk about this. So do you. I KNOW you do.

It's frustrating.

Being like this.

But we can build our own community. For those that stand in the shadows, looking on. I will never turn away or cross someone who reaches out and expresses the pain of being an "outsider". And we can use that term is so many different forms. I want you guys to feel some sense of BELONGING. I don't think we can heal withoutthat that.

Hit me up with more ideas.


----------



## Abraxas

The Perfect Storm said:


> Thank you for validating me. It's a rarity and I welcome it with open arms.
> 
> I completely agree with you, and it fucking hurts (because I want to be the next Messiah like the next person, lol). I believe it's something we all want to see reflected back to us....
> 
> 
> I could go on and on and on about emotional and spiritual abuse. I WANT to talk about this. So do you. I KNOW you do.
> 
> It's frustrating.
> 
> Being like this.
> 
> But we can build our own community. For those that stand in the shadows, looking on. I will never turn away or cross someone who reaches out and expresses the pain of being an "outsider". And we can use that term is so many different forms. I want you guys to feel some sense of BELONGING. I don't think we can heal withoutthat that.
> 
> Hit me up with more ideas.


----------



## Entropic

The Perfect Storm said:


> LOL, I like that proverb. xD


It's meant to describe how if you like someone, there's always space to share them, even if there's very little space available. Usually in the sense of for example, sharing space in a crowded car to go on a road trip, sharing bed space even though all sleeping spots are taken etc.


----------



## The_Wanderer

The Perfect Storm said:


> I'm done with trying to put labels on people or place boundaries between myself and others. For me, all it does is perpetuate a dysfunctional mode of "separateness" and being.


No argument. For anyone who utilises Socionics/MBTI/Keirsey etc. in this way, they should discard it.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> No argument. For anyone who utilises Socionics/MBTI/Keirsey etc. in this way, they should discard it.


Funny story... Turns out they aren't answers. They're questions. They are the current state of a long series of questions by our species and our progenitor ones to answer the fundamental question of life as we perceive it: What is the equation for going from 3rd dimension intelligence to 4th dimensional intelligence? A little birdie told me. Then I fed him a cracker. It had peanut butter on it.


----------



## Abraxas

Jeremy8419 said:


> Funny story... Turns out they aren't answers. They're questions. They are the current state of a long series of questions by our species and our progenitor ones to answer the fundamental question of life as we perceive it: What is the equation for going from 3rd dimension intelligence to 4th dimensional intelligence? A little birdie told me. Then I fed him a cracker. It had peanut butter on it.


No, it's not a cracker, it's a BISCUIT. FUCK YOU. THEY'RE DIFFERENT.

SKREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE~


----------



## Jeremy8419

Abraxas said:


> No, it's not a cracker, it's a BISCUIT. FUCK YOU. THEY'RE DIFFERENT.
> 
> SKREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE~


That picture is your mental block requesting Fe- and your vital block requesting Se+, while your dual is requesting Ni+ and their vital is requesting Ti- lol.

I've solved 4th dimension information paradigm.

I liked your harmonica lol <-beneficiary information request in words.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

"Unconditional love" sounds kinda meaningless to me, surely there must be some reason for love to happen in the first place.

Also thinking about Fi, and the attraction/repulsion thing, and sometimes it sounds like Fi is nothing but a feeling of like or dislike, but that can't be right, because it's supposed to be a rational function, right? So it should be more than just a feeling/reaction.


----------



## firedell

This is a thread warning to keep discussions less personal.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Distortions said:


> it's supposed to be a rational function, right? So it should be more than just a feeling/reaction.


_Rational_ here meaning _decision making_​.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> Funny story... Turns out they aren't answers. They're questions. They are the current state of a long series of questions by our species and our progenitor ones to answer the fundamental question of life as we perceive it: What is the equation for going from 3rd dimension intelligence to 4th dimensional intelligence? A little birdie told me. Then I fed him a cracker. It had peanut butter on it.


God sounds like Rowdy Roddy Piper. One you figure out the answers, he changes the questions. 

The system is incomplete. Humans are incomplete. They cannot prove themselves within themselves. Nietzsche said man conceals things, doesn't reveal things. Because he is standing in the way. God is something outside the system that we appeal to. Imagine we created a computer with all our laws and reason. Then disappeared. Would the computer ever wonder if there is something outside the system? Would it ever wonder if its reason was created by an imperfect being? If it was created at all. Would it ever reason its way there? Why can humans figure that out? 

I never got what the universe is expanding into. I have heard all the analogies. Like a cookie rising in the oven. But it is rising into something. What is the boundary that separates the universe from not the universe, and what is "not the universe"? A cookie is expanding, has a boundary, and exists in a larger medium that is "not a cookie". 

People have said that the intangible is the seed of the tangible. I really love this quote by William James how the abstract world, or heaven, is like the air above water. The air replishnesses us but is not breathable as air, only through the medium of water. And though it isn't necessary for life here, it may be necessary for life elsewhere. He is talking about Heaven I believe.

_"We are like fishes swimming in the sea of sense, bounded above by the superior element, but unable to breathe it pure or penetrate it. We get our oxygen from it, however, we touch it incessantly, now in this part, now in that, and every time we touch it we are reflected back into the water with our course re-determined and re-energized. The abstract ideas of which the air consists, indispensable for life, but irrespirable by themselves, as it were, and only active in their re-directing function. All similes are halting but this one rather takes my fancy. It shows how something, not sufficient for life in itself, may nevertheless be an effective determinant of life elsewhere."_


----------



## Jeremy8419

fearandtrembling said:


> Imagine we created a computer with all our laws and reason. Then disappeared. Would the computer ever wonder if there is something outside the system? Would it ever wonder if its reason was created by an imperfect being? If it was created at all. Would it ever reason its way there? Why can humans figure that out?
> 
> I never got what the universe is expanding into. I have heard all the analogies. Like a cookie rising in the oven. But it is rising into something. What is the boundary that separates the universe from not the universe, and what is "not the universe"?


"Awareness" is the final fracture of the individual's information paradigm on the 4th dimension. The dual is the completion of the information paradigm that has split into yourself and the dual. The actualization of the dual returns the individual's information paradigm to the 3rd dimension, whereby the two-dimensional information paradigm passes and receives information in a single dimension, causing the information paradigm acting in the 4th dimension to have exponential intelligence. The information paradigm equation completing in those existing in the fourth dimension is the process of the universal intelligence within the 4th dimension attempting to return back into itself and through the 1st dimension and into 4th dimension. The information paradigm of transcendence beyond dimensions.


----------



## Strife

firedell said:


> This is a thread warning to keep discussions less personal.


You came to the wrong quadra thread for that


----------



## Jeremy8419

Strife said:


> You came to the wrong quadra thread for that


How now, let's all try and be civil and stuff. Aren't we supposed to be here to try and talk about socionics and all the worthless things it offers to us?


----------



## Abraxas

Strife said:


> You came to the wrong quadra thread for that


I agree with you, but at the same time, socionics isn't an excuse to be disrespectful though. It's just a theory for why it tends to happen.

Sometimes people seem to forget that.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> What does raising one eyebrow, slight side-grin, and silence count as? Lol


Fe.


----------



## Valtire

Night Huntress said:


> Also, gammas are WAY better at snark, dude. Like really. When a beta gets hit by some quality snark he needs his homeboys to back him up and shut you down. Snark battles though... just nah. They can't manage that.


Ah you think snarkiness is your ally? You merely adopted the snark. I was born in it, moulded by it. I didn't see the nice until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but grinding!

But seriously. I had to learn to be less snarky to avoid losing my friends.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> Fe.


Ah okay. My SEE friends do it when you pick on them lol.


----------



## Entropic

Jeremy8419 said:


> Ah okay. My SEE friends do it when you pick on them lol.


No matter how I try to twist and turn that in my head, I cannot see how this is something SEEs do. Eye-rolling maybe, or the like, but not in the way you describe it here.


----------



## Serpent

I can't even raise one eyebrow.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> No matter how I try to twist and turn that in my head, I cannot see how this is something SEEs do. Eye-rolling maybe, or the like, but not in the way you describe it here.


Well, that's what they do lol. Smile usually happens as they turn their gaze away.


----------



## Zamyatin

Entropic said:


> No matter how I try to twist and turn that in my head, I cannot see how this is something SEEs do. Eye-rolling maybe, or the like, but not in the way you describe it here.


Actually it reminds me of an IEI I know. She did that all the time because it was a non-confrontational way to express disagreement. It's subtle so no risk of retaliation or having to back up her disagreement. More of a "shame them into doing what I want" than "I don't like this so I'll press you into doing what I want". The former has the expectation that the observer will notice their disagreement and feel embarrassed.


----------



## Verity

Jeremy8419 said:


> What does raising one eyebrow, slight side-grin, and silence count as? Lol


I'd say it depends on the context. My SLI father does it meaningfully towards me after replying to my ESE stepmother with some sarcastic remark which passes over the rest of the family's heads. My SLE brother does it toward people when he thinks he's being smarter than them. I'd attribute the first example to Fi, since it's like "*you* get *me.*", but I dunno about the second. It's kinda trollish.


----------



## To_august

Jeremy8419 said:


> What does raising one eyebrow, slight side-grin, and silence count as? Lol


There are many ways I can think of, but I mostly use those when...

...being skeptical
* *
















...disapproving
* *















...ready to test if this will work out
* *
















...not knowing how to react to something. Should I laugh with everybody or just...
* *
















...disagreeing
* *


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> What does raising one eyebrow, slight side-grin, and silence count as? Lol


What is this? Anderson Silva's response to a an interviewer telling him that another fighter said he's dead:










He is a massive showboat and it somehow worked. 










You missed me, so I will go back and you can try again. He drops his hands and lets people hit him.




















Didn't work this time though. The commentator Joe Rogan is hilarious. "Anderson Silva disrespected the hands of Chris Weidman and paid for it with his consciousness."


----------



## Abraxas

Jeremy8419 said:


> What does raising one eyebrow, slight side-grin, and silence count as? Lol


Human.


----------



## Kintsugi

What does it mean to be SEE/ESFp?

Really.

Thought I knew the answer.

Turns out I don't.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The Perfect Storm said:


> What does it mean to be SEE/ESFp?
> 
> Really.
> 
> Thought I knew the answer.
> 
> Turns out I don't.


It means you wanna freak on Abraxas.


----------



## Vermillion

The Perfect Storm said:


> What does it mean to be SEE/ESFp?


Nothing. Everything. Depends on how you look at it.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Would it be possible to grow food in a spaceship? You can not create energy form nothing and the earth losses potential after a while. One of the problems apparently going to mars is that the food storage would take to much space in the ship. :ball:


----------



## Blue Soul

The Perfect Storm said:


> What does it mean to be SEE/ESFp?
> 
> Really.
> 
> Thought I knew the answer.
> 
> Turns out I don't.


@ The SEEs - It means you're probably very attractive.

@Abraxas I like your avatar. It gives me a sense of passing time and space.


----------



## Psithurism

I hate when people think devaluing a function, cognitively speaking, necessarily means disliking everything having to do with it or meaning you have to reject it every chance you get. That includes the PoLR function.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Verglas said:


> I hate when people think devaluing a function, cognitively speaking, necessarily means disliking everything having to do with it or meaning you have to reject it every chance you get. That includes the PoLR function.


all functions are equally awesome :triumphant:


----------



## Kintsugi

Jeremy8419 said:


> It means you wanna freak on Abraxas.


Not really, although he's the most "freakable" person on this damn sub-forum, sure. 



Night Huntress said:


> Nothing. Everything. Depends on how you look at it.


I'll go with "nothing". The more I learn about myself the more irrelevant it becomes.



Blue Soul said:


> @ The SEEs - It means you're probably very attractive.


:dry:


----------



## Entropic

Incompetent doctors are the worst, especially when they don't listen to their patients. I went to have an allergy test some month ago and I finally got it back. My symptoms included rashes/hives/eczema, itching and dry eyes and hot flushes. At its peak I suffered a fairly serious case of angiodema. I could barely open my eyes. He dismissed all of them in favor of narrowing down on the eczema as my primary issue and thought all the other symptoms were unrelated. Asked me some questions about whether the medicine I got to treat the allergy worked and I said that the cortisone was much better. He said he thought it wasn't an allergy but an eczema and only reluctantly agreed to a blood test but assumed it'd turn out negative. So I received it and my levels were above the accepted average and my problems are allergy related. G fucking g. I hope he takes this as a learning lesson to listen better to his patients. Exactly where I go from here I don't know except I'm tired of scratching myself to death. I probably need to see an eye specialist as well since my eyes don't improve. Kind of tired of this shit seeing how I've had problems since July at least.


----------



## Ixim

Night Huntress said:


> Nothing. Everything. Depends on how you look at it.


Doesn't it mean you're super hot?


----------



## Blue Soul

Entropic said:


> Incompetent doctors are the worst, especially when they don't listen to their patients. I went to have an allergy test some month ago and I finally got it back. My symptoms included rashes/hives/eczema, itching and dry eyes and hot flushes. At its peak I suffered a fairly serious case of angiodema. I could barely open my eyes. He dismissed all of them in favor of narrowing down on the eczema as my primary issue and thought all the other symptoms were unrelated. Asked me some questions about whether the medicine I got to treat the allergy worked and I said that the cortisone was much better. He said he thought it wasn't an allergy but an eczema and only reluctantly agreed to a blood test but assumed it'd turn out negative. So I received it and my levels were above the accepted average and my problems are allergy related. G fucking g. I hope he takes this as a learning lesson to listen better to his patients. Exactly where I go from here I don't know except I'm tired of scratching myself to death. I probably need to see an eye specialist as well since my eyes don't improve. Kind of tired of this shit seeing how I've had problems since July at least.


Doctors are always stressed as fuck. If you go to a specialist they'll still be stressed, but at least they know what they're doing.



The Perfect Storm said:


> :dry:


What? Do you disagree? Just stating facts.


----------



## Entropic

Blue Soul said:


> Doctors are always stressed as fuck. If you go to a specialist they'll still be stressed, but at least they know what they're doing.


Sure, but it doesn't justify not taking the patient and their concerns seriously. He could definitely have approached me in a more receptive way. It was simply very bad customer service and yes, I do believe doctors have a responsibility to also treat their patients respectfully. Being a doctor does not excuse one from being a dick.


----------



## Zamyatin

So my old landlord just stole $35 bucks from my security deposit by claiming I didn't return a parking permit tag I actually did return. Not a lot I can do since I can't really prove I returned something I no longer have and it would be a net loss to pay court fees over $35, but it still pisses me off. My girlfriend said I should go and chew him out in person, but I know him well enough to know that's not going to work and I know for a fact that it's not a mistake because he made it a point to note that any complaints about the deposit should be made in writing and submitted to his lawyer, lol.


----------



## Entropic

Zamyatin said:


> So my old landlord just stole $35 bucks from my security deposit by claiming I didn't return a parking permit tag I actually did return. Not a lot I can do since I can't really prove I returned something I no longer have and it would be a net loss to pay court fees over $35, but it still pisses me off. My girlfriend said I should go and chew him out in person, but I know him well enough to know that's not going to work and I know for a fact that it's not a mistake because he made it a point to note that any complaints about the deposit should be made in writing and submitted to his lawyer, lol.


'Murica. I don't think I'll ever understand your passion for law suits.


----------



## Zamyatin

Entropic said:


> 'Murica. I don't think I'll ever understand your passion for law suits.


Lol well, you know, obsession with property rights and shit. Go too far to the right and they basically argue that laws and courts should be replaced with contracts and arbitration, lol.


----------



## Entropic

Zamyatin said:


> Lol well, you know, obsession with property rights and shit. Go too far to the right and they basically argue that laws and courts should be replaced with contracts and arbitration, lol.


Did they consider who should decide on the policy that governs those, though?


----------



## Zamyatin

Entropic said:


> Did they consider who should decide on the policy that governs those, though?


Free markets or something, and privatized courts. It gets kind of crazy when you move towards an-caps.


----------



## Entropic

Zamyatin said:


> Free markets or something, and privatized courts. It gets kind of crazy when you move towards an-caps.


So essentially they don't care, as long as they get what they want, entirely disregarding of whether the system is applied fairly and equally across the board? K. They are probably better off creating their own little dictatorships, then, lol, since that is what they are asking for, anyway.


----------



## Blue Soul

Entropic said:


> Sure, but it doesn't justify not taking the patient and their concerns seriously. He could definitely have approached me in a more receptive way. It was simply very bad customer service and yes, I do believe doctors have a responsibility to also treat their patients respectfully. Being a doctor does not excuse one from being a dick.


Yeah, some doctors have no clue. Proper reception is very important for alot of reasons.



Zamyatin said:


> So my old landlord just stole $35 bucks from my security deposit by claiming I didn't return a parking permit tag I actually did return. Not a lot I can do since I can't really prove I returned something I no longer have and it would be a net loss to pay court fees over $35, but it still pisses me off. My girlfriend said I should go and chew him out in person, but I know him well enough to know that's not going to work and I know for a fact that it's not a mistake because he made it a point to note that any complaints about the deposit should be made in writing and submitted to his lawyer, lol.


Wait, so how did he have access to your security deposit exactly? He opened up your apartment when you weren't home and figured out your code by trial and error? You shouldn't have to take shit like this.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Blue Soul said:


> Yeah, some doctors have no clue. Proper reception is very important for alot of reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, so how did he have access to your security deposit exactly? He opened up your apartment when you weren't home and figured out your code by trial and error? You shouldn't have to take shit like this.


Security deposit is money you give to the owner when you move in. When you move out, they deduct any damages from your deposit and return the remainder to you. It's like a lump-sum insurance policy. Unless you are proven to have had "negligent disregard for the property," they can't charge you more for any repairs to the property than the initial security deposit.

For instance, I paid $500 security deposit for my apartment. I got two cats and had to pay $500 pet security deposit for each one. One of the cats has urinary tract issues, and the carpet and a few baseboards in the main living room is ruined from urine stains, and no amount of shampooing will fix it. The carpet will need to be replaced when I move out at the end of October. The carpet replacement may cost more than $1000, I don't know. However, because it is pet-related and has nothing to do with damages caused by myself, they are limited to the $1000 of pet security deposit that I gave them. They must pay for any additional costs for the carpet themselves. The initial security deposit must be returned to me, because I have not caused any damage to the property.


----------



## Blue Soul

Jeremy8419 said:


> Security deposit is money you give to the owner when you move in. When you move out, they deduct any damages from your deposit and return the remainder to you. It's like a lump-sum insurance policy. Unless you are proven to have had "negligent disregard for the property," they can't charge you more for any repairs to the property than the initial security deposit.
> 
> For instance, I paid $500 security deposit for my apartment. I got two cats and had to pay $500 pet security deposit for each one. One of the cats has urinary tract issues, and the carpet and a few baseboards in the main living room is ruined from urine stains, and no amount of shampooing will fix it. The carpet will need to be replaced when I move out at the end of October. The carpet replacement may cost more than $1000, I don't know. However, because it is pet-related and has nothing to do with damages caused by myself, they are limited to the $1000 of pet security deposit that I gave them. They must pay for any additional costs for the carpet themselves. The initial security deposit must be returned to me, because I have not caused any damage to the property.


Oh, I pictured a safe box. xD

Thanks, now it all makes sense all of a sudden, except the part where @Zamyatin's old landlord was a dick. Only did it because he knows he can get away with it.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Blue Soul said:


> Oh, I pictured a safe box. xD
> 
> Thanks, now it all makes sense all of a sudden, except the part where @Zamyatin's old landlord was a dick. Only did it because he knows he can get away with it.


My lease includes my remote for the gates at the complex. His thing was probably similar. The "no receipt" thing was dick-ish, but probably unavoidable or simply never occurred to them to give receipts for such.


----------



## Kintsugi

Blue Soul said:


> What? Do you disagree? Just stating facts.


I don't disagree (it's subjective). I just find your response to be boring, predictable, and unenlightening.


----------



## Blue Soul

The Perfect Storm said:


> I don't disagree (it's subjective). I just find your response to be boring, predictable, and unenlightening.


Well, the answer to your question lies within yourself. You have to give yourself to give others. How's that for enlightening?


----------



## Kintsugi

Blue Soul said:


> Well, the answer to your question lies within yourself. You have to give yourself to give others. How's that for enlightening?


Pathetic.

Yawn.


----------



## Captain Mclain

The Perfect Storm said:


> Pathetic.
> 
> Yawn.


You are really offensive on many post to people


----------



## Blue Soul

The Perfect Storm said:


> Pathetic.
> 
> Yawn.


Your attitude is your own loss.


----------



## Kintsugi

Captain Mclain said:


> You are really offensive on many post to people


I dislike people who brand me as "offensive" and/or "bad" because I express a personal opinion that threatens their fragile world-view. It's a bit of a cop-out, really. 

Similarly, I find your post offensive; you accuse me of certain actions without taking the time to understand the motive/drive behind them.

Check mate?


----------



## Kintsugi

Blue Soul said:


> Your attitude is your own loss.


thank you, Jesus.

I will try and remember to repent for my sins....but...


you know, modern life...and all that jazz.

Would a couple Hail Mary's suffice?


----------



## Entropic

Dream Eater said:


> No, I mean doesn't the company you work for have any trouble with you free-lancing?


Freelancing what? GFX? It's a hobby and I don't do it for pay, so.


----------



## Zamyatin

Entropic said:


> How are you going to plan the business? I've been looking into ngos as employment since I'm overqualified for that stuff but usually I clash based on ideology so it never became a thing. I know one Swedish ngo called svalorna situated in Thailand and working for women's rights so you may be interested in contacting them to hear how they work for more practical advice.
> 
> How would you receive funding for your project if you start it up?


Well, at the suggestion of someone I spoke to we set a 2 year success benchmark at the preschool enrollment of 1,000 children ages 4-6 in the city of Bankok, although details like that are subject to change when we get better data that allows us to make a more detailed and realistic budget. To do that, our 2-year strategy has three prongs;

1) Build two preschools in Bangkok using NGO funds.
2) Hire and train a handful of local educators.
3) Recruit teaching volunteers from the United States through cooperation with university "study abroad" programs.

The first year will involve the building of one preschool of our own using our initial grant and the training of a couple of local educators. The sooner this is completed the better, because it gives us something tangible we can show off to get additional funds and to recruit volunteers, lots of photos of cute kids in school and whatnot. I've already begun building a list of universities that have study abroad programs for their education majors -- a minority of the universities actually sponsor/offer scholarships to students with high grades to complete programs with ours, but most make the student responsible for their own travel expenses, so I'm trying to develop a standard "travel package" that I can use as a quoted price for volunteers.

It's a strategy that's been used before in other countries so it's not like it's completely new. Still this entire thing is a bit overwhelming because I feel like I'm going into it blind. There are way too many gaps and too much uncertainty. Still have some important questions I haven't resolved like the criteria we'll use to select children to enter the schools (it's almost certain there will be more applicants than we will have resources to teach). A lot can't be written into the plan until I've had time to fact-find in Thailand itself, which is slightly irritating because I don't like ambiguity in my plans. Definitely the most ambitious thing I've ever attempted.


----------



## Figure

Ugh, this LSE I work with..... 

I'm in this weird position, where I KNOW things are going down the path of Supervision. She's new, and unfortunately with what we do there is a very complex knowledge base at play where we have long, drawn out discussions on topics where there's a ton of back and forth using terminology that is specific to the project. 

Because she doesn't know the terminology yet, she basically has to ask me every time she doesn't understand something and every time I answer it gives her just enough to feel like she's made a breakthrough when really, to me, her work still needs to be fine tooth combed. I think to her, I look like this indispensable person who knows everything about anything work-related when really I'm just recalling information that anyone who is experienced could provide - or, making decisions on the fly. I can feel the sense of dependence created by Supervisory relations starting to creep in and I really don't want that to happen, but no matter what I do just by virtue of the kind of responses I give, it perpetuates the atmosphere creating the relation. 

I feel so bad watching her make complete messes of what to me seem like very simple concerns, and completely stressing over details that don't actually matter in the end result of what she is doing, particularly if my input is causing it. But when I tell her that X specific detail here or there doesn't matter, she has trouble knowing which ones don't and which ones do....... I think to an SEE, for example, this would be just enough for them to continue doing whatever they were doing. 



Just an example of Ni PoLR, for the day!


----------



## Transience

Entropic said:


> Freelancing what? GFX? It's a hobby and I don't do it for pay, so.


Ah, that's good for me then.


----------



## Vermillion

That feel when your main gets nerfed got you like


----------



## Transience

Night Huntress said:


> That feel when your main gets nerfed got you like


The patch is out??? :upset:

Have you played her yet?


----------



## He's a Superhero!

Dream Eater said:


> Ah, that's good for me then.


A fellow ESI! 

Just wanted to point that out to everyone.


----------



## Transience

He's a Superhero! said:


> A fellow ESI!
> 
> Just wanted to point that out to everyone.


Haha 
Hello there


----------



## He's a Superhero!

Dream Eater said:


> Haha
> Hello there


Hi! *Hugs*


----------



## Vermillion

Dream Eater said:


> The patch is out??? :upset:
> 
> Have you played her yet?


Might as well quit league bro, she can't even damage bots hahahhaahahhahahahahaha

Challenger winrate dropped by 15% on the patch day


----------



## Entropic

Dream Eater said:


> The patch is out??? :upset:
> 
> Have you played her yet?


She did and she cried tears of blood.


----------



## Jagbas

He's a Superhero! said:


> A fellow ESI!
> 
> Just wanted to point that out to everyone.


You are not alone here!


----------



## He's a Superhero!

Jagbas said:


> You are not alone here!


:O ...I'm not?

/o.o\


----------



## Jagbas

He's a Superhero! said:


> :O ...I'm not?
> 
> /o.o\


Well, you two are not the only ESI here :wink:


----------



## Entropic

You know how really fucking amazing good songs really just jive you up? Yeah, that:
https://youtu.be/gA_Oe0li3I4


----------



## Transience

Night Huntress said:


> Might as well quit league bro, she can't even damage bots hahahhaahahhahahahahaha
> 
> Challenger winrate dropped by 15% on the patch day


What the flying fuck??!! Did they even ttest her before they released the patch? Or was this the deed of some who bore her the deepest hatred?
Hahahahaha
Who's joining me in my rebellion against RITO and it's shitty brain? 



Entropic said:


> She did and she cried tears of blood.


I might be crying too but there wouldn't be blood - not yet. I'd cry for blood when they murder Jinx too.


----------



## Entropic

Dream Eater said:


> What the flying fuck??!! Did they even ttest her before they released the patch? Or was this the deed of some who bore her the deepest hatred?
> Hahahahaha
> Who's joining me in my rebellion against RITO and it's shitty brain?


Seeing how every champion they released since forever, always has this issue on release (being UP/OP), they should really reconsider who are on the PTR and how representative that group is overall of the player base. 



> I might be crying too but there wouldn't be blood - not yet. I'd cry for blood when they murder Jinx too.


*Happy mid laner 4lyfe*


----------



## Vermillion

Entropic said:


> *Happy mid laner 4lyfe*


Don't be proud of yourself. You main a fox whore whose death sound is right out of a porn video. You should be ashamed. At least I have standards. Vayne has so much dignity and class.


----------



## Entropic

Night Huntress said:


> Don't be proud of yourself. You main a fox whore whose death sound is right out of a porn video. You should be ashamed. At least I have standards. Vayne has so much dignity and class.


I don't care because she's fun to play. Not that she's the only one I play. I don't care so much what my character represents but how I can accomplish what I want in the game.


----------



## Transience

Entropic said:


> Seeing how every champion they released since forever, always has this issue on release (being UP/OP), they should really reconsider who are on the PTR and how representative that group is overall of the player base.


Now, how do we tempt them to do that?

Idk if petitions help but if we get 40 million signatures, then maybe?




Entropic said:


> *Happy mid laner 4lyfe*


This reminds me so much of that Fizz sticker on facebook. lol

I used to main mid before I got thrashed about ridiculously in a game as Brand. And after that I looked up CC.



Night Huntress said:


> Don't be proud of yourself. You main a fox whore whose death sound is right out of a porn video. You should be ashamed. At least I have standards. Vayne has so much dignity and class.


Maybe you'd have more fun if you knew how to play her right?


----------



## Serpent

I don't play League of Legends but I understand the deal with choosing a main and patches because I was very into the FGC (fighting game community) for a while. It was kind of a mess to choose a main because I was looking for a character that resonated with me but also a viable character because I just wanted to be good. I was more concerned with the character, someone I just related to and was fun to play as, than mix-ups, frame data and viability. I hated people who just switched and abandoned characters according to the patches, I felt it removed the fun from the game if you merely saw it as a tool to win competitions and tournaments.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Quentyn said:


> I don't play League of Legends but I understand the deal with choosing a main and patches because I was very into the FGC (fighting game community) for a while. *It was kind of a mess to choose a main because I was looking for a character that resonated with me but also a viable character because I just wanted to be good*. I was more concerned with the character, someone I just related to and was fun to play as, than mix-ups, frame data and viability. I hated people who just switched and abandoned characters according to the patches, I felt it removed the fun from the game if you merely saw it as a tool to win competitions and tournaments.


It's why I like more recent fighting games that have played with the idea of customization or custom characters. Either way, I'm a Nightmare man in the Soul games and a Shao Kahn guy in Mortal Kombat.


----------



## Psithurism

Quentyn said:


> I don't play League of Legends but I understand the deal with choosing a main and patches because I was very into the FGC (fighting game community) for a while. It was kind of a mess to choose a main because I was looking for a character that resonated with me but also a viable character because I just wanted to be good. I was more concerned with the character, someone I just related to and was fun to play as, than mix-ups, frame data and viability. I hated people who just switched and abandoned characters according to the patches, I felt it removed the fun from the game if you merely saw it as a tool to win competitions and tournaments.


I played League of Legends competitively for a while and it always bothered me that I sometimes had to learn characters I didn't resonate or couldn't emotionally connect with, because they were simply the most overpowered ones to use during the patch. It's something I try to avoid in any game, because it takes away a lot from the fun factor.


----------



## eastwin

Moreover, mastering a character requires a lot of time. Well this is the problem with MOBAs in general. All heroes have different mechanisms, animation, builds, match ups. You need a lot of experience, in order to master all the match ups, knowing how to play against a certain character, or a certain team composition. You have to learn how to trade, how to win your lane, how to farm effectively. Beyond that you need to understand how to take advantage of your character in order to have an impact on the game. How to gank a certain character for example. The amount of interactions are very numerous, and you can't know how to handle them properly until you experience them.

Should I also talk about team fighting, and the time you need to learn how to properly position yourself in order to dish out as much damage as possible, or how to land your spells perfectly in the case of casters.

Yeah, people should start learning this, before insulting their mates.

In the case of LoL, it's true that the metagame often changes and I must agree that it is very problematic. However, some champs seems to be rather balanced, and never received much nerfs/buffs, to the point that you can't play them competitively anymore. Ahri is a good example, she never became weak since the season 2. Irelia, Vayne, Sona also. Some characters seems to have a balanced kit.

Unfortunately, as a character require a lot of time of mastering, your ability to win games will also be affected by this. It is always your skill with a certain character that will make you win more games. That's why playing seriously and always trying to understand how to play properly characters, is the best way to carry games.

Why am I talking about this? I don't even play this game anymore.


----------



## Serpent

I'm curious about how you would type the WritingPrompts subreddit, what it stands for. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/WritingPrompts/


----------



## Entropic

Bought a new scratching post today. Mission successful, as it turns out they like it a lot. I wish they were less finicky about them. The only negative part is that the post has balls in holes, and one of them is a squeaky toy. I'll probably have a horrible sleep tonight.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> Bought a new scratching post today. Mission successful, as it turns out they like it a lot. I wish they were less finicky about them. The only negative part is that the post has balls in holes, and one of them is a squeaky toy. I'll probably have a horrible sleep tonight.


They have modular cat houses here, where you can buy various parts and put them together like Legos to make whatever cat house you can dream up.


----------



## Entropic

Been looking into smartphones as my old Xperia that I really like doesn't have a functioning microphone anymore. Can't make calls, can't record, can't talk over Skype even using a headset. It's been wonky the past months in general but working fine otherwise so I didn't care so much though the android 5 upgrade really made it more unstable. If I want to keep sony which I do because design wise sony still has the sexiest phones on the market imo, I'll guess I'll go with z5 compact. Not returning to Samsung again due to my bad experiences with trash apps from s2. Tbh I wonder why people keep expecting smart phones to perform like a pc. Why do you need 1920x1080p for example? If I want to watch a high res hd movie, I do that on my pc or laptop where you actually see shit but maybe that's just me. I'd like to upgrade my tv to full hd support eventually and stream from the pc or in the very least use the hdmi cable I broke before, but ah well. 

I'll probably just end up playing hearthstone anyway, on it outside of simcity that I play now, which my current z1 can just fine as well so. Right now I just want to be able to fucking call NH on Skype without inference.


----------



## Transience

Entropic said:


> Been looking into smartphones as my old Xperia that I really like doesn't have a functioning microphone anymore. Can't make calls, can't record, can't talk over Skype even using a headset. It's been wonky the past months in general but working fine otherwise so I didn't care so much though the android 5 upgrade really made it more unstable. If I want to keep sony which I do because design wise sony still has the sexiest phones on the market imo, I'll guess I'll go with z5 compact. Not returning to Samsung again due to my bad experiences with trash apps from s2.


I don't know about Sony - never used it. My Samsung works fine aside from the fact that it freezes sometimes but I knew that it would before I bought it so. 



Entropic said:


> Tbh I wonder why people keep expecting smart phones to perform like a pc. Why do you need 1920x1080p for example? If I want to watch a high res hd movie, I do that on my pc or laptop where you actually see shit but maybe that's just me. I'd like to upgrade my tv to full hd support eventually and stream from the pc or in the very least use the hdmi cable I broke before, but ah well.


Well, it'd make sense if they couldn't afford a laptop that's good enough. Or if they were constantly on the move and a lap would be too bulky to carry around?
Or maybe they're in a situation where they have to share their pc/lap and they're addicted.
Well, whatever the reason, it pushes the limits of tech so. 



Entropic said:


> Right now I just want to be able to fucking call NH on Skype without inference.


Shouldn't your pc work fine enough for now?


----------



## Entropic

Dream Eater said:


> I don't know about Sony - never used it. My Samsung works fine aside from the fact that it freezes sometimes but I knew that it would before I bought it so.


Yeah, I think it's just because of Android updates. My z1 began to increasingly freeze too with every Android update. It worked the smoothest when I got it, obviously. 



> Well, it'd make sense if they couldn't afford a laptop that's good enough. Or if they were constantly on the move and a lap would be too bulky to carry around?
> Or maybe they're in a situation where they have to share their pc/lap and they're addicted.
> Well, whatever the reason, it pushes the limits of tech so.


Yeah, but the point is that the screen is so small the extra resolution isn't going to be noticeable much, to the naked eye, anyway, unless you zoom in a lot. If people want that, isn't a tablet a worthwhile investment which is inbetween phone and laptop? There's a reason the laptop market is dying, anyway. Hell, even the dedicated PC market is, outside of hardcore gaming. 



> Shouldn't your pc work fine enough for now?


It does, but it means I can't sleep while doing so which is the downside. It's kind of uncomfortable to sleep on a chair.

Anyway, I got the damn phone. I could return my old ones and save money because my current operator currently has this campaign where you get a definite value no matter what phone it is that you turn in, and any additional phone just reduces the total amount that you need to pay (I actually wish I could have found all my old phones, as I got a Samsung Galaxy 1 and some very old Samsung flip-flop model that was cool over a decade ago) and probably save off even more, but I ended up settling for the regular z5 over the Compact. There was not much of a difference in costs, when all was said and done, and z5 is slightly more powerful and I could keep the old case I got now since I'm pretty sure the Compact version would be too small and not fit. Especially as it turns out the current available cases got no card holders which kind of sucks. Like, wtf Sony? It was the one thing I was annoyed with last time I got my z1 as well, because the card holder only got one pocket. It just sucks major dick. 

I like the Swedish telecom market though. The competition is so harsh so when you invest in a new phone and bind yourself up further as a customer, they just shower you in extras for free so even though you invest in a phone that costs several hundred dollars, you probably shave off 100-200 alone, just on getting free goodies. I got a new earphone set (no idea value, but probably 30-40 dollars), a new case (I guess I'll sell it or return it in later for a case with a card holder since I don't need or want this one, and it is easily worth over 30 dollars) and an extra USB cable that said it was long, and holy, is it long (like 1.5 m, and it's probably worth 30 dollars as well). 

So yeah, at least in monetary value, I'm happy. The only irony is that the phone looks exactly the same as the old one, pretty much, though I had the freedom to pick a different color. I just don't like the idea of picking one backside color but it's not reflected on the front. It just meshes so badly. Not that it matters since I'll keep it in the case, anyway.


----------



## Remcy

Just out of curiosity, has anyone done research on possible correlation between Quadras and Blood Types? Could some gammas who know their blood type list it here?


----------



## Entropic

Remcy said:


> Just out of curiosity, has anyone done research on possible correlation between Quadras and Blood Types? Could some gammas who know their blood type list it here?


I'm O-. I doubt there's a correlation.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> I'm O-. I doubt there's a correlation.


Well, at least the question wasn't on "ethnicity" lol


----------



## Recede

Is it normal to strongly prefer another quadra over the one your behavior resembles? I seem to be drawn to Se harshness in others and am almost never drawn to those who lack it. Though I myself don't seem to have an ounce of that harshness in me.


----------



## Entropic

Recede said:


> Is it normal to strongly prefer another quadra over the one your behavior resembles? I seem to be drawn to Se harshness in others and am almost never drawn to those who lack it. Though I myself don't seem to have an ounce of that harshness in me.


Depends on why you are drawn to it? Are you sure it's the harshness, for example, and not something else that also tends to manifest along with the harshness?


----------



## Recede

Entropic said:


> Depends on why you are drawn to it? Are you sure it's the harshness, for example, and not something else that also tends to manifest along with the harshness?


I'm fairly sure it's the harshness, and I'm not aware of any particular reason as to why I'm drawn to it. I don't know, I just am.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Recede said:


> I'm fairly sure it's the harshness, and I'm not aware of any particular reason as to why I'm drawn to it. I don't know, I just am.


Are you drawn most to the extroverts of one Quadra over the other? Most of the extroverted females I am drawn to are ENxP or ESxJ.


----------



## Recede

Jeremy8419 said:


> Are you drawn most to the extroverts of one Quadra over the other? Most of the extroverted females I am drawn to are ENxP or ESxJ.


Can't say. I haven't known that many people to establish how I relate to specific types.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Recede said:


> Can't say. I haven't known that many people to establish how I relate to specific types.


Are you considering the harshness to be Se? Or is the harshness a lack of Fe or Fi strength?


----------



## Recede

Jeremy8419 said:


> Are you considering the harshness to be Se? Or is the harshness a lack of Fe or Fi strength?


For now, seems Se. I don't know if I have a preference for logical or ethical types.


----------



## Vermillion

Verglas said:


> Or at least it has strong potential to be. It is disheartening to see people use it as a discrimination or discrediting tool. Typism is real.


It splits people into so many needless categories and dictates so much about how you are and should be. What you should like, and shouldn't. To the point that people discard so many solutions with potential and value, just because it's from some quadra or type that they don't like.

I can definitely understand a degree of rationalizing conflict. But people are so much more than their types. Sometimes as asshole is just an asshole, not necessarily your conflictor or supervisor or whatever. Sometimes a nice person is just a nice person. Sometimes even supposedly bad intertype relations can play out nicely.

If people remembered that then they would find a world full of nicer and kinder ways to view people and their ideas, instead of outright kicking them to the curb. Seeing things purely through typology makes things look inevitable and unresolvable. That's why you see all these people going "so YEAH my mom the wretched SEI ruined everything and I hate alphas lol 2cool4u"

At this point I've been into typology for so long that it's an automatic reflex for me to type people in various situations. But it's so lame. I'm trying to just shush that voice and not let it conflict with my opinions of people, so that they can stay unbiased.


----------



## Inveniet

Verglas said:


> Or at least it has strong potential to be. It is disheartening to see people use it as a discrimination or discrediting tool. Typism is real.


What should it be used for instead of pre judge what others are about?
Should it be treated as imaginary labels that only mean rainbows, poines and carebears?

Cause even then it isn't pretty.


----------



## Inveniet

@Night Huntress
I see your point about trying to distance oneself from typology.
Yet a mind once expanded cannot be snapped back to it's original proportions.
Only way to leave this, is to find something that evolve past it in a way.
I'm thinking that the archetypes and defence mechanisms might be such a path.


----------



## Psithurism

Night Huntress said:


> It splits people into so many needless categories and dictates so much about how you are and should be. What you should like, and shouldn't. To the point that people discard so many solutions with potential and value, just because it's from some quadra or type that they don't like.
> 
> At this point I've been into typology for so long that it's an automatic reflex for me to type people in various situations. But it's so lame. I'm trying to just shush that voice and not let it conflict with my opinions of people, so that they can stay unbiased.


I've been enjoying this very Alpha SF game lately. By strict socionics law, I should reconsider my liking of it and force myself to be intentionally uncomfortable while playing it, which of course is absurd.

I always assess people I meet based on their character in general. Their type is just a little bit of trivia for me. It's a drop in the bucket.


----------



## Psithurism

hornet said:


> What should it be used for instead of pre judge what others are about?
> Should it be treated as imaginary labels that only mean rainbows, poines and carebears?


Is ''pre-judging'' a form of discrimination for you in this context? 

If yes, then the answer is obvious. 
If no, then there is nothing to talk about. You can use it as you will as long as you aren't using it to hurt people.


----------



## Inveniet

Verglas said:


> I've been enjoying this very Alpha SF game lately. By strict socionics law, I should reconsider my liking of it and force myself to be intentionally uncomfortable while playing it, which of course is absurd.
> 
> I always assess people I meet based on their character in general. Their type is just a little bit of trivia for me. It's a drop in the bucket.


Anyway I was probably a bit harsh in that last post.
I can see your point.
I think it has more to do with surplus than anything.
People already run down will be more affected by their conflictor than say someone with surplus.
I'm pretty guilty of using typology for a lot of situations in my life.
That being said, I'm barely able to keep my head above water sometimes
and typology is that little edge that keeps me afloat.
So I get defensive about people trying to moderate it as if I did that I would be screwed.
The best I can do is triangulate Jungian types, the enenagram and instictual types 
to correct for trying to pidgeonhole every detail into any one of them.


----------



## Inveniet

Verglas said:


> Is ''pre-judging'' a form of discrimination for you in this context?
> 
> If yes, then the answer is obvious.
> If no, then there is nothing to talk about. You can use it as you will as long as you aren't using it to hurt people.


Offf...
I don't even know where to start with that one.
Maybe you should define "hurt" and "discriminate" a little clearer here,
I'm not afraid of taking a side that you will dislike, 
but I rather not rant mistakenly against such a vague statement.


----------



## Psithurism

hornet said:


> Offf...
> I don't even know where to start with that one.
> Maybe you should define "hurt" and "discriminate" a little clearer here,
> I'm not afraid of taking a side that you will dislike,
> but I rather not rant mistakenly against such a vague statement.


I'm not using my own definitions as far as I know.

''Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.''

Hurt: 4. to affect adversely; harm 5. to cause mental pain to; offend or grieve:


----------



## Vermillion

Verglas said:


> I've been enjoying this very Alpha SF game lately. By strict socionics law, I should reconsider my liking of it and force myself to be intentionally uncomfortable while playing it, which of course is absurd.
> 
> I always assess people I meet based on their character in general. Their type is just a little bit of trivia for me. It's a drop in the bucket.


And I've been watching a gamma show lately, but while it's good, I find myself thinking everyone should really chill out and not be so uptight, selfish, and competitive. How traitorous of me... Q_Q



hornet said:


> @_Night Huntress_
> I see your point about trying to distance oneself from typology.
> Yet a mind once expanded cannot be snapped back to it's original proportions.
> Only way to leave this, is to find something that evolve past it in a way.
> I'm thinking that the archetypes and defence mechanisms might be such a path.


The mind doesn't need to snap back and erase all knowledge of typology. I'm not condemning it. It definitely has its uses. What the mind can learn is to treat things with the importance they deserve and not be disproportionate. That is what I'm aiming for, and I think you'd agree.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Don't think I could make myself only enjoy shows etc. of my own quadra even if I wanted to. Although I tend to prefer Ne-Si stuff most of the time, variety is good.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Night Huntress said:


> And I've been watching a gamma show lately, but while it's good, I find myself thinking everyone should really chill out and not be so uptight, selfish, and competitive. How traitorous of me... Q_Q
> 
> 
> 
> The mind doesn't need to snap back and erase all knowledge of typology. I'm not condemning it. It definitely has its uses. What the mind can learn is to treat things with the importance they deserve and not be disproportionate. That is what I'm aiming for, and I think you'd agree.


I'd chime in with personal experience. I was really into anthropology back in 5-6 years and I had learned enough that I was typing (yeah there is a type me subforum there as well at ameteur sites) that I was typing every single person i see on street or elsewhere. Once bored i stopped frequenting forums so easily yetthat typing habit stuck with me, making me shit uncomfortable for a while (i mean a couple years maybe). However, now I dont do it at all, my brain actually erased that automatic response within time. 
Ok, my point is, you will eventually lose that habit of typing people automaticly, erasing the responce with some time. 

Btw, I also notice you've become more relaxed, encouraging, Fe-ish'ery for a while . You can join alpha quadra if you want.:kitteh:


----------



## Jeremy8419

Night Huntress said:


> It splits people into so many needless categories and dictates so much about how you are and should be. What you should like, and shouldn't. To the point that people discard so many solutions with potential and value, just because it's from some quadra or type that they don't like.
> 
> I can definitely understand a degree of rationalizing conflict. But people are so much more than their types. Sometimes as asshole is just an asshole, not necessarily your conflictor or supervisor or whatever. Sometimes a nice person is just a nice person. Sometimes even supposedly bad intertype relations can play out nicely.
> 
> If people remembered that then they would find a world full of nicer and kinder ways to view people and their ideas, instead of outright kicking them to the curb. Seeing things purely through typology makes things look inevitable and unresolvable. That's why you see all these people going "so YEAH my mom the wretched SEI ruined everything and I hate alphas lol 2cool4u"
> 
> At this point I've been into typology for so long that it's an automatic reflex for me to type people in various situations. But it's so lame. I'm trying to just shush that voice and not let it conflict with my opinions of people, so that they can stay unbiased.


It depends on how people use it.

It shows differences on certain lines of communication, sometimes major. You can use the information to either bridge this gap to get along better, or you can use it as an excuse to not make any effort. 


That applies to all things, not just Socionics. I know zero about sports. When I want to make an effort to communicate with someone speaking about it, I ask questions and talk about aspects of it that aren't specifically sports related. When I don't want to make the effort, I say I don't know anything about sports, and the communication stops.

Socionics and typology show people the common hurdles present, so that they may make the effort to cross them. It was designed by alpha NTs who aren't predispositioned to know these hurdles automatically.


----------



## Vermillion

crashbandicoot said:


> I'd chime in with personal experience. I was really into anthropology back in 5-6 years and I had learned enough that I was typing (yeah there is a type me subforum there as well at ameteur sites) that I was typing every single person i see on street or elsewhere. Once bored i stopped frequenting forums so easily yetthat typing habit stuck with me, making me shit uncomfortable for a while (i mean a couple years maybe). However, now I dont do it at all, my brain actually erased that automatic response within time.
> Ok, my point is, you will eventually lose that habit of typing people automaticly, erasing the responce with some time.


That's good to know. As long as it stops being a nagging compulsion, lol. Typology is fun, but I don't need it in dealing with people.



> Btw, I also notice you've become more relaxed, encouraging, Fe-ish'ery for a while . You can join alpha quadra if you want.:kitteh:


Hey, thanks ^_^ I'll stop by if you guys have nice food. Pretty boring to only stay cooped up with stuck-up gammas like myself all the time, after all :tongue:


----------



## Inveniet

Night Huntress said:


> The mind doesn't need to snap back and erase all knowledge of typology. I'm not condemning it. It definitely has its uses. What the mind can learn is to treat things with the importance they deserve and not be disproportionate. That is what I'm aiming for, and I think you'd agree.


I do absolutely.
It is like when most people learn typology they have so few tools to handle reality,
seeing the potential of typology they outsource everything to that process.
Most people are run down and miserable, 
so making a mess with typology in a desperate attempt to get somewhat on top of things is to be expected.
The typical topic of conversation is*, 
"I'm type X and my SO is Y, our relationship is going to hell.
How do we fix it with typology?"*


----------



## Inveniet

Verglas said:


> I'm not using my own definitions as far as I know.
> 
> ''Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.''
> 
> Hurt: 4. to affect adversely; harm 5. to cause mental pain to; offend or grieve:


Okay cool, just making sure that we are on the same page before we go into such a rabbithole.
I don't think this will end well.

I wish I could prevent harm to everyone I meet.
I cant.
I must sometimes chose to harm people due to the impossible circumstance I'm trust into.

I reserve the right to discriminate againt anyone I see fit to so against.
I can respect everyone as a subject to an extent, but still I must act against you and destroy you.
Almost every time for the pre-discriminated reason.
The discrimination allows me time enough to arm myself to the teeth before the battle that is often inevitable.
I set up an ambush in a sense and wait for them to do what they must.
This is of course only in situations that I can't avoid.
Else I will tell them that I can't linger, I got stuff to do, places to be etc.
To stick around with your conflictor is 9 times out of 10 a disaster.
*And no the 1 time don't in anyway justify the cost of the other 9.*
Your attitude if anything, 
suggests to me a very theoretical at best and a very limited experience with actual application of the theory in reality.
Armchair theorist as they call them.
People when trying to use any theory in practice often get quite a shock in meeting reality.
The theory isn't necissary wrong, it is just that the theory don't prepare you for the reality of it.
I have extencive knowledge of the theory in practice.
I could give examples of skills I've gotten, but you wouldn't belive me and I'd get flamed by ignorant passersby.
So whatever.

To sum up.
You attitude that


> You can use it as you will as long as you aren't using it to hurt people.


you can just give up.
You don't have any authoriy over me.
I do as I like with this, *I'm not actively out to hurt people*, but I will if I must crush people who give me no choice.


----------



## Psithurism

@hornet



> I reserve the right to discriminate againt anyone I see fit to so against.
> I can respect everyone as a subject to an extent, but still I must act against you and destroy you.


Define ''destroy'' here. Clearly you must not mean killing, so what is your ''limit'' so to speak until you feel it is too much.



> To stick around with your conflictor is 9 times out of 10 a disaster.
> *And no the 1 time don't in anyway justify the cost of the other 9.*


Let me cut to the chase and ask you: do you think your conflictor is inherently a harmful person just because they use different functions? Furthermore, does this make them a bad person?



> Your attitude if anything,
> suggests to me a very theoretical at best and a very limited experience with actual application of the theory in reality.
> Armchair theorist as they call them.
> People when trying to use any theory in practice often get quite a shock in meeting reality.


I see your ''attitude'' as limited and one that sticks too much theory to help defend yourself, instead of using it as a tool to bypass differences when it is possible. Using it as a tool for considerate understanding of others. 

Sure, if you just can't get along with someone, then so be it, that's normal. But don't use socionics as your main justification. People are more than just your ''conflictor'' and whatnot.

It's because I've talked to several Fe users and been acquainted with what Fe ''looks like'' enough that I can say that socionics isn't law when it comes to who I will like or not. I've also clashed with people of my quadra often enough.

You're the one over-applying the theory here, not me. I know the limits of the theory experientially and which is why I take the theory with a grain of salt. Just look at the ITR descriptions for example, they are so robotic and fatalistic. That's not how life works.



> You don't have any authoriy over me.


I never said I did. I'm not even sure where this reaction comes from.



> I do as I like with this, *I'm not actively out to hurt people*,


Good.



> but I will if I must crush people who give me no choice.


Depends how you do it and on the situation. If it's disportionate for example, you're doing it wrong.

Also, I would invite you to not use words like ''destroy'' and ''crush'' so casually, it makes it hard to assess the seriousness of your statements.


----------



## Inveniet

Verglas said:


> @_hornet_
> Define ''destroy'' here. Clearly you must not mean killing, so what is your ''limit'' so to speak until you feel it is too much.


Mmm it could be their social status or whatever else I see them value or lean on.
I basically take away something I see is dear to them and that they themself don't recognize being up for grabs.
Could be so many things.
The destruction usually happen long after I've left the scene as some cascade of events unfold.
Both my doing and not.



> Let me cut to the chase and ask you: do you think your conflictor is inherently a harmful person just because they use different functions? Furthermore, does this make them a bad person?


Well yes they are harmful to me in that they drain me of energy reserves that i have painfully low already.
If i was a more stable and resourceful person they probably wouldn't be.
No not a bad person, just an incompatible person.
Function conflict of interest can be overcome to an extent, but it requires tons of surplus.
Most people are run down, and function conflicts only run them down even more.
The reason I'm so reactive towards it, is that I realized the energy saving potential of shielding myself from certain types.



> I see your ''attitude'' as limited and one that sticks too much theory to help defend yourself, instead of using it as a tool to bypass differences when it is possible. Using it as a tool for considerate understanding of others.


Yeah ideally that is what I'll end up doing.
However this world isn't perfect and hence ideals have to wait.
When the fieldmedic is out of morphine, he is out.
No amount of crying and begging will help.



> Sure, if you just can't get along with someone, then so be it, that's normal. But don't use socionics as your main justification. People are more than just your ''conflictor'' and whatnot.


Sure they are.
They have lots of other traits, personal histories etc.
Yet none of that matters when you are at the ropes.
None of that matters when you are traumatized and 99% of the human race is fairly traumatized on some level.
We don't live in an utopia where we shield each other from our type perspectives.
On the contrary we try to push our type view in each others faces blatantly.
Especially when you are each others conflictors.



> It's because I've talked to several Fe users and been acquainted with what Fe ''looks like'' enough that I can say that socionics isn't law when it comes to who I will like or not. I've also clashed with people of my quadra often enough.


Yeah I liked my conflictors and supervisors quite well.
Yet they totally derailed my life.
Maybe you have tons of surplus to throw around, I don't.



> You're the one over-applying the theory here, not me. I know the limits of the theory experientially and which is why I take the theory with a grain of salt. Just look at the ITR descriptions for example, they are so robotic and fatalistic. That's not how life works.


Sure they are pretty rigid, however they do point out some rather pertinent patterns that do emerge pretty rapidly.




> I never said I did. I'm not even sure where this reaction comes from.


 Okay just making sure you know.



> Depends how you do it and on the situation. If it's disportionate for example, you're doing it wrong.


Disproportionate to who's standard?
That is the problem isn't it?
Someone who have lived a sheltered life will think someone who grew up in the ghetto 
have disproportionate reactions to everything.



> Also, I would invite you to not use words like ''destroy'' and ''crush'' so casually, it makes it hard to assess the seriousness of your statements.


I understand, yet when I do use those words I'm leaning on a part of me that has quite a bit of destructiveness in it.
Part of me wants to destroy everything I touch.
It leaks out in my communications sometimes.
Yet I have made quite a bit of headway with it so no worries.
10 years ago i would have started a physical confrontation with someone over this conversation.
A year ago I couldn't discuss stuff like this without throwing stuff in anger at the wall.
Now it only leaks out in a few destructively charged words.


----------



## Psithurism

hornet said:


> Disproportionate to who's standard?
> That is the problem isn't it?
> Someone who have lived a sheltered life will think someone who grew up in the ghetto
> have disproportionate reactions to everything.


Yea, it's true that there is often a moral ''grey'' zone when it comes to those things. Elements of different nature clash together and neither wants to walk the same path together.
In this case though, I think we can agree on basic stuff such as not stabbing someone just because they dissed you.

Your post seems to imply that we're actually not that much at odds, so there is little left to argue and we can conclude the conversation here. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.


----------



## Inveniet

Verglas said:


> Yea, it's true that there is often a moral ''grey'' zone when it comes to those things. Elements of different nature clash together and neither wants to walk the same path together.
> In this case though, I think we can agree on basic stuff such as not stabbing someone just because they dissed you.
> 
> Your post seems to imply that we're actually not that much at odds, so there is little left to argue. So I will conclude the conversation here. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.


Sure no problem, I found the process mildy theraputic actually. :wink: 
I often need a thinker to point out when I'm reacting too much.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Is there a TLDR for this?


----------



## Serpent

Jeremy8419 said:


> Is there a TLDR for this?


That's exactly what I think when I read your Socionics explanations lol.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Quentyn said:


> That's exactly what I think when I read your Socionics explanations lol.


LOL.

Here: TLDR; go... outside...


----------



## Verity

Damn it. You Gammas _really are_ vampires.


----------



## The Exception

Recede said:


> Is it normal to strongly prefer another quadra over the one your behavior resembles? I seem to be drawn to Se harshness in others and am almost never drawn to those who lack it. Though I myself don't seem to have an ounce of that harshness in me.


I'm the complete opposite. I find Se harshness in others repulsive and avoid it if at all possible. I am very much Si/Ne valuing and an alpha, ha! 

Not that Se is necessarily harsh, but since it's my PoLR, when someone displays a heavy dose of Se, it can come across to me as harsh. 

If you value the Se 'harshness' in others but find you lack it in yourself, you might be Se suggestive.


----------



## Bash

This thread needs more Gamma SF.


----------



## Vermillion

Bash said:


> This thread needs more Gamma SF.


I'm enough gamma SF for this entire forum. 

(lol jk luv all my fellow xsfps tho)

(but im still the queen bitch)


----------



## Entropic

Fuck yeah, finally finished my most recent art project.


----------



## kitsu

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> I'm the complete opposite. I find Se harshness in others repulsive and avoid it if at all possible. I am very much Si/Ne valuing and an alpha, ha!
> 
> Not that Se is necessarily harsh, but since it's my PoLR, when someone displays a heavy dose of Se, it can come across to me as harsh.
> 
> If you value the Se 'harshness' in others but find you lack it in yourself, you might be Se suggestive.


Hmm I dunno, I like Se but I'm a big marshmallow myself. Se is so deliciously blunt. Ne is great but I find it gives me a knack for overcomplicating very simple things.

I'll be all like "Ah look at this shape! Four straight lines all meeting at right angles, separating an inside space from an outside space... How freaking cosmic"
And my SEE friend be like "Girl that's a square."

And I just find that so refreshing.


----------



## Bash

Night Huntress said:


> I'm enough gamma SF for this entire forum.
> 
> (lol jk luv all my fellow xsfps tho)
> 
> (but im still the queen bitch)


: D


----------



## Vermillion

The second coolest gamma SF here is @Transience. She's cute as fuck but also deadly as fuck and I love her.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Can someone pleaseee spark up some conversation, argument or sth ? :frustrating:


----------



## Transience

Night Huntress said:


> The second coolest gamma SF here is @_Transience_. She's cute as fuck but also deadly as fuck and I love her.


...


Why, thank you.
Now, why do I feel like this is a ploy to get me here?


----------



## Entropic

It occurred to me that introverted functions tend to make unsaid assumptions about a thing e.g. Fi makes assumptions about people's feelings despite not having a clear evidence in terms of emotional display, of what the person in actuality is feeling, whereas Fe in a sense, takes emotions at face value. I have a decent idea of how this applies to Fe vs Fi and Se vs Si, but not Te vs Ti and Ne vs Ni, though.


----------



## Vermillion

Transience said:


> ...
> 
> 
> Why, thank you.
> Now, why do I feel like this is a ploy to get me here?


Can't it be both a compliment and a ploy? Double-edged sword, hue.


----------



## AdInfinitum

Entropic said:


> It occurred to me that introverted functions tend to make unsaid assumptions about a thing e.g. Fi makes assumptions about people's feelings despite not having a clear evidence in terms of emotional display, of what the person in actuality is feeling, whereas Fe in a sense, takes emotions at face value. I have a decent idea of how this applies to Fe vs Fi and Se vs Si, but not Te vs Ti and Ne vs Ni, though.


I have also thought about this, played with the idea a while. It seems to me as if Te tends to take logical truth as a commonly agreed on structure, while Ti looks for different logical perspectives so that it gathers logical consistency for all cases therefore Ti makes assumptions about logic without actual proof.

I get the impression that while Ne grasps the multiple objective ways in which a situation can develop or an idea can be exploited to its full potential, Ni tries to nail it down to prediction based on intuitive archetypes and therefore sort the substance in order to achieve its target. 

Am I on to anything or mainly just blabbering?


----------



## Entropic

NobleRaven said:


> I have also thought about this, played with the idea a while. It seems to me as if Te tends to take logical truth as a commonly agreed on structure, while Ti looks for different logical perspectives so that it gathers logical consistency for all cases therefore Ti makes assumptions about logic without actual proof.
> 
> I get the impression that while Ne grasps the multiple objective ways in which a situation can develop or an idea can be exploited to its full potential, Ni tries to nail it down to prediction based on intuitive archetypes and therefore sort the substance in order to achieve its target.
> 
> Am I on to anything or mainly just blabbering?


No, it makes sense, though I am not sure how Ti for example sees implied information in a logical statement. Similarly, I am not sure how Ne takes things at face value, quite.


----------



## Transience

Night Huntress said:


> Can't it be both a compliment and a ploy? Double-edged sword, hue.


Well, I don't mind either way.


----------



## Valtire

Entropic said:


> No, it makes sense, though I am not sure how Ti for example sees implied information in a logical statement. Similarly, I am not sure how Ne takes things at face value, quite.


I would say extrapolation and interpolation are basically how Ti implications work.

Say you've got a Ti system, which is akin to a line of best fit on a graph of facts. The implications are the parts of the line that aren't near any facts.


----------



## Bash

Night Huntress said:


> The second coolest gamma SF here is @Transience. She's cute as fuck but also deadly as fuck and I love her.


Oh, and she is an ESI. Well, hello there, @Transience


----------



## Vermillion

Bash said:


> Oh, and she is an ESI. Well, hello there, @_Transience_


Talk about subtlety. Lol back off she's my girl


----------



## Entropic

Almost finished Hellsing Ultimate, some thoughts on the characters and their types:

Alucard: ILI 8w7 sx/so who tries so hardcore to Se, option 2 is LIE but I can't quite see it because well, he doesn't really Te all that much and his Se while he tries to use it, is imo even to me, utter trash and completely lacking in grace lol though from his POV, I think I'd do that too because if you are that powerful you just stop giving a fuck
Integra: ESI, gave up on enneagram but probably social first
Seras: ESE 6w7 maybe?, seems social
Pip: IEE 7w6 sx/so or so/sx
Water: LSE I think 1w9, sp/sx
The Major: EIE has 2 in there, but idk if he's a core one, definitely social first, I could see some weird fucked up 2w3 logic
Schrödinger: ILE, stereotype 7w6
Zorin: SLE, idk
Anderson: leaning SLI right now, he's a tough nut, but I think he's Fi because he's so focused on sticking to his feels principles and want to do the right thing and not compromise himself and his values, 1w2 sx/so imo
Maxwell: some type 3w4, social or sexual probs
Luke: ILE 3 I think, definitely social
Janus: 7w8?, whatever, SLE, forgettable guy
Rip: IEI
Alhambra: another 3 probs

Whatever, probably forgot a bunch but at some point I think Hirano added too many characters that don't provide too much value at the end anyway.

Oh yeah, I should probably include the Wolfman and he has like 1D Fe or something. LII or LSI? I lean LII as a gut instinct thing.


----------



## Vermillion

Bash said:


> View attachment 446426


HA that's me. Always fuming about some random thing. I tend to have Dreiser's face though.


----------



## Transience

Bash said:


> Oh, and she is an ESI. Well, hello there, @_Transience_


Well, I did introduce myself in the thread quite a while back but oh well, hello Bash.


Bash said:


> View attachment 446426


Hmm
I'm pretty sure most of my uni friends would say that I look like the guy farthest right, which I'm guessing is Balzac? But I do understand  and maybe relate to Dreiser's expression


----------



## Entropic

Night Huntress said:


> HA that's me. Always fuming about some random thing. I tend to have Dreiser's face though.


No. In this situation you look more like Caesar than Dreiser. Or Napoleon, whatever.


----------



## Verity

So I went to a gay-club recently, and every single guy seemed like an Fe-valuing type. Three separate people called me haughty, despite doing literally nothing besides politely telling them that I wasn't there to meet someone. I don't think I've ever felt so out of place, and it had absolutely nothing to do with sexuality.



Edit: Just to make it clear, I don't think there is any correlation between being gay and a type, but it kinda seems like "gay-culture" very much encourages strong Fe-ish displays of emotion, and I felt kinda pressured by it.


----------



## Zamyatin

Verity said:


> So I went to a gay-club recently, and every single guy seemed like an Fe-valuing type. Three separate people called me haughty, despite doing literally nothing besides politely telling them that I wasn't there to meet someone. I don't think I've ever felt so out of place, and it had absolutely nothing to do with sexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Just to make it clear, I don't think there is any correlation between being gay and a type, but it kinda seems like "gay-culture" very much encourages strong Fe-ish displays of emotion, and I felt kinda pressured by it.


Yeah, from what I've seen of the gay subculture in the US by being around my brother, that seems pretty accurate. The "flamboyant" stereotype itself is mostly Fe peacocking, and the people who live in gay neighborhoods like Chicago's boytown tend to do so for the sense of community and connection with people of a shared identity, so lots of alphas and betas. There's also a lot of focus on your place within the gay community (twink, bear, drag, etc) and there seems to be a fairly strict social hierarchy. My ILE brother once told me about how "his" group (he self-identifies as "twink") is vertically organized, with the prettiest boys acting like royalty at the top and getting privileges from the people with authority, while the rest are expected to show respect. There are usually defined leader/authority figures in the community who keep newcomers in line and protect the interests of the community. These leaders are generally professionals and upper-class, lots of lawyers and doctors, and they use a combination of money and personal influence to ostracize people who violate the norms of their group.

The entire idea makes me vaguely uncomfortable, but my brother doesn't seem to mind it. I'm not sure if it's the people he hangs around with or reflective of the insular nature of the gay community, but I didn't see many gay people from the serious quadras around him. The serious gay people I know are less immersed in the gay community and seemed to be more integrated with the rest of society.


----------



## Entropic

Verity said:


> So I went to a gay-club recently, and every single guy seemed like an Fe-valuing type. Three separate people called me haughty, despite doing literally nothing besides politely telling them that I wasn't there to meet someone. I don't think I've ever felt so out of place, and it had absolutely nothing to do with sexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Just to make it clear, I don't think there is any correlation between being gay and a type, but it kinda seems like "gay-culture" very much encourages strong Fe-ish displays of emotion, and I felt kinda pressured by it.





Zamyatin said:


> Yeah, from what I've seen of the gay subculture in the US by being around my brother, that seems pretty accurate. The "flamboyant" stereotype itself is mostly Fe peacocking, and the people who live in gay neighborhoods like Chicago's boytown tend to do so for the sense of community and connection with people of a shared identity, so lots of alphas and betas. There's also a lot of focus on your place within the gay community (twink, bear, drag, etc) and there seems to be a fairly strict social hierarchy. My ILE brother once told me about how "his" group (he self-identifies as "twink") is vertically organized, with the prettiest boys acting like royalty at the top and getting privileges from the people with authority, while the rest are expected to show respect. There are usually defined leader/authority figures in the community who keep newcomers in line and protect the interests of the community. These leaders are generally professionals and upper-class, lots of lawyers and doctors, and they use a combination of money and personal influence to ostracize people who violate the norms of their group.
> 
> The entire idea makes me vaguely uncomfortable, but my brother doesn't seem to mind it. I'm not sure if it's the people he hangs around with or reflective of the insular nature of the gay community, but I didn't see many gay people from the serious quadras around him. The serious gay people I know are less immersed in the gay community and seemed to be more integrated with the rest of society.


It's not just the gay culture but the entire LGBTQ culture imo. This is the same reason why I avoid associating myself with the LGBTQ as a whole. To clarify, not sure if you've ever been at or observed Gay or similar LGBTQ-motivated parades, but Fe is just a part of the movement. Especially beta seems very prominent in transgender and queer circles. I'm a member in a major Facebook group for transgender people and it's the same thing in there; lots and lots of betas, especially NF women. It leads to some hilarious catfighting though.

Addendum: It's not just LGBTQ but the feminist movement is like this as well, by and large, at least this neofeminism that's been on the rise the past decade that tries to incorporate intersectionalism etc.


----------



## Serpent

I finally watched the original Star Wars trilogy over a course of a week, culminating about an hour ago. Feel like I've ticked off an entry on a bucket list. It was a cool experience. Also, this will really benefit me when I watch The Force Awakens tomorrow since the movies will be fresh in my mind.


----------



## Verity

Zamyatin said:


> Yeah, from what I've seen of the gay subculture in the US by being around my brother, that seems pretty accurate. The "flamboyant" stereotype itself is mostly Fe peacocking, and the people who live in gay neighborhoods like Chicago's boytown tend to do so for the sense of community and connection with people of a shared identity, so lots of alphas and betas. There's also a lot of focus on your place within the gay community (twink, bear, drag, etc) and there seems to be a fairly strict social hierarchy. My ILE brother once told me about how "his" group (he self-identifies as "twink") is vertically organized, with the prettiest boys acting like royalty at the top and getting privileges from the people with authority, while the rest are expected to show respect. There are usually defined leader/authority figures in the community who keep newcomers in line and protect the interests of the community. These leaders are generally professionals and upper-class, lots of lawyers and doctors, and they use a combination of money and personal influence to ostracize people who violate the norms of their group.


That's fucked up.



> The entire idea makes me vaguely uncomfortable, but my brother doesn't seem to mind it. I'm not sure if it's the people he hangs around with or reflective of the insular nature of the gay community, but I didn't see many gay people from the serious quadras around him. The serious gay people I know are less immersed in the gay community and seemed to be more integrated with the rest of society.


I think there's some truth to the idea that lots of people have trouble coming out due to feeling as if they're expected to act a certain way just because they are gay, and it's ironic because I always thought that queer-culture was supposed to be about being comfortable with your sexuality in a non-judgemental atmosphere, yet I felt really judged. It was as if I was breaking unwritten rules simply by being myself. I went there without any major preconceptions and was really surprised at how uncomfortable it turned out to be. It's as if it started as a kinda extreme counter-culture back in the day when there was an actual need for it, but now it has stayed that way too long(and swedish society is pretty lgbtq-friendly) and has become more like a sect. On the other hand I suppose it's pretty natural, just not what I expected.


----------



## Entropic

Speaking about gay and transgender and the LGTBQ movement and how narrow-minded it can be, not sure if you've run into this recently:

Grindrâ€™s Trans Dating Problem - The Daily Beast

http://www.buzzfeed.com/heyheyjeffr...-being-a-trans-guy-on-grindr-qcmx#.weZJvgA6Zm

I think it highlights how gatekeeping the gay culture can be. Of course, you see a similar attitude within transgender towards non-transitioning individuals such as crossdressers.


----------



## Verity

Entropic said:


> Speaking about gay and transgender and the LGTBQ movement and how narrow-minded it can be, not sure if you've run into this recently:
> 
> Grindrâ€™s Trans Dating Problem - The Daily Beast
> 
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/heyheyjeffr...-being-a-trans-guy-on-grindr-qcmx#.weZJvgA6Zm
> 
> I think it highlights how gatekeeping the gay culture can be. Of course, you see a similar attitude within transgender towards non-transitioning individuals such as crossdressers.


Seems like it's one of those inherently human paradoxes, how gatekeeping seems to appear in virtually every culture, even those based on values that directly counters that line of thinking.

I've also thought that it's kinda wierd how being transgender is lumped together with sexuality, I mean, I can see why it was that way before, but it seems like people put too much emphasis on social identity nowadays, rather than just apprehending it as a biological thing. What is your opinion on the matter?


----------



## Verity

Double post.


----------



## Entropic

Verity said:


> Seems like it's one of those inherently human paradoxes, how gatekeeping seems to appear in virtually every culture, even those based on values that directly counters that line of thinking.
> 
> I've also thought that it's kinda wierd how being transgender is lumped together with sexuality, I mean, I can see why it was that way before, but it seems like people put too much emphasis on social identity nowadays, rather than just apprehending it as a biological thing. What is your opinion on the matter?


Personally I'm for transgender being separated from the LGB part of the LGBTQ but it is as it is right now. It started that way because the gay movement had the most social mobility and power so other minority groups just kind of tag along. At some level yeah, some people fall into both categories e.g. certain kinds of crossdressers so for them it makes no sense to keep it distinct but they are a small outlier neither the LGB nor the trans movement really want to associate with due to the connotations they carry. 

When you mean identity, do you mean social identity in terms of sexuality rather than gender or are you referring to both? 

Anyway, gender as a social identity being dissociated from biology makes sense to me since the idea of a biological sex as a strict category makes no scientific sense to begin with. I guess what I don't care for are those who similar to the gay movement, seek to flaunt it in public and take pride in it and such; I can understand it from the purpose of empowerment but it's the same thing you see with the feminist movement trying to mobilize behind the notion of "sisterhood". None of these concepts appeal to me, anyway. My identity is a private thing. I'm not hiding my identity but I also realize that it puts me in a vulnerable position and most of the time I really don't want to deal with that bullshit. Also, I find that people who need to flaunt do it because they try to cover up an insecurity they have that their past identity is actually hurtful to them so they take on another identity instead as a way to cover it up in new pretty colors or something. I rather just minimize any engagement with it, personally.

Not sure if I answered your question.


----------



## Verity

Entropic said:


> Personally I'm for transgender being separated from the LGB part of the LGBTQ but it is as it is right now. It started that way because the gay movement had the most social mobility and power so other minority groups just kind of tag along. At some level yeah, some people fall into both categories e.g. certain kinds of crossdressers so for them it makes no sense to keep it distinct but they are a small outlier neither the LGB nor the trans movement really want to associate with due to the connotations they carry.
> 
> When you mean identity, do you mean social identity in terms of sexuality rather than gender or are you referring to both?
> 
> Anyway, gender as a social identity being dissociated from biology makes sense to me since the idea of a biological sex as a strict category makes no scientific sense to begin with. I guess what I don't care for are those who similar to the gay movement, seek to flaunt it in public and take pride in it and such; I can understand it from the purpose of empowerment but it's the same thing you see with the feminist movement trying to mobilize behind the notion of "sisterhood". None of these concepts appeal to me, anyway. My identity is a private thing. I'm not hiding my identity but I also realize that it puts me in a vulnerable position and most of the time I really don't want to deal with that bullshit. Also, I find that people who need to flaunt do it because they try to cover up an insecurity they have that their past identity is actually hurtful to them so they take on another identity instead as a way to cover it up in new pretty colors or something. I rather just minimize any engagement with it, personally.
> 
> Not sure if I answered your question.


Oh, I meant it in the context of both, for example: Being transgender seems like a primarily biological condition, while gender is a social identity more than anything(it's importance is kinda overplayed imo, but it's still relevant sometimes). So I have trouble understanding people who treat being transgender like an identity, I mean, of course it's a part of a person's identity like any biological circumstance, and the same applies to being gay/straight/bi, but what kinda bothers me is that most transgender people seem to just want to live as the gender they experience as right, and it seems like the lgbtq-movement goes the other way instead and encourages people to embrace trans as the defining part of one's social identity, as if it was relevant for everyone they meet to know it. So lots of transgender people will keep it a secret instead of just referring to it as a biological fact separated from gender as a social or sexual identity, or atleast that is my limited experience. So you answered my question.


----------



## Entropic

Verity said:


> Oh, I meant it in the context of both, for example: Being transgender seems like a primarily biological condition, while gender is a social identity more than anything(it's importance is kinda overplayed imo, but it's still relevant sometimes). So I have trouble understanding people who treat being transgender like an identity, I mean, of course it's a part of a person's identity like any biological circumstance, and the same applies to being gay/straight/bi, but what kinda bothers me is that most transgender people seem to just want to live as the gender they experience as right, and it seems like the lgbtq-movement goes the other way instead and encourages people to embrace trans as the defining part of one's social identity, as if it was relevant for everyone they meet to know it. So lots of transgender people will keep it a secret instead of just referring to it as a biological fact separated from gender as a social or sexual identity, or atleast that is my limited experience. So you answered my question.


Right, you mean people who identify as transgender for being transgender, no, I do not understand that logic either because to me "transgender" is a descriptor of my social place in in society as it describes my relationship that I have with current existing views on gender and where I fit into that matrix. It does not, however, say anything about my actual sense of self or identity. Some people just seem to take that place they are designated to be who they are though. Additionally, these people also seem to be the most vocal about taking pride in being trans etc. I wonder if that's also distantly related to Fe logic, seeing social place as being reflective of your person since it seems to me that Fe types often understand their sense of self and identity based on other people's attitudes towards you.


----------



## Entropic

I feel like I am Neo learning how to do karate except compared to Neo, there is no super-computer plugging all this information straight into my brain. I wish it could though, as it would make all of this so much more efficient.


----------



## Valtire

Entropic said:


> Right, you mean people who identify as transgender for being transgender, no, I do not understand that logic either because to me "transgender" is a descriptor of my social place in in society as it describes my relationship that I have with current existing views on gender and where I fit into that matrix.


This went several miles above my head. It's as if you're talking a different language. What does this mean?


----------



## Entropic

Fried Eggz said:


> This went several miles above my head. It's as if you're talking a different language. What does this mean?


Essentially, I see words like "transgender" as a definition that says who you are in an objective way in relation to society i.e. someone who is transgender is someone whose gender identity and/or expressions transgresses the accepted gender norms of society. It does not, however, say anything about who you actually are as a person because this factual quality is only on a superficial external level but has no real bearing on your actual sense of self and identity.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Entropic said:


> Addendum: It's not just LGBTQ but the feminist movement is like this as well, by and large, at least this neofeminism that's been on the rise the past decade that tries to incorporate intersectionalism etc.


I agree. Identity politics as a whole seems to have a very strong Beta NF slant to it.


----------



## Cataclysm

Entropic said:


> I feel like I am Neo learning how to do karate except compared to Neo, there is no super-computer plugging all this information straight into my brain. I wish it could though, as it would make all of this so much more efficient.


So basically you're just trying to learn karate?


----------



## Entropic

Cataclysm said:


> So basically you're just trying to learn karate?


No, I'm trying to get up to date with current research on gender and specifically transgender and get up to date within the time-frame of less than a month.

I wish it was karate. That actually seems a lot simpler, lol.


----------



## Mean Aunt Seena

So I finally actually took the Socionics test. I thought before it's just an interpretation of your MBTI score. Now I get how it works. So I'm definitely, without a doubt, unquestionably ENTj and all of this stuff:


----------



## Apple Pine

Which quadra you are attracted to? 

I was wondering.


----------



## Kerik_S

Verity said:


> So I went to a gay-club recently, and every single guy seemed like an Fe-valuing type. Three separate people called me haughty, despite doing literally nothing besides politely telling them that I wasn't there to meet someone. I don't think I've ever felt so out of place, and it had absolutely nothing to do with sexuality.
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Just to make it clear, I don't think there is any correlation between being gay and a type, but it kinda seems like "gay-culture" very much encourages strong Fe-ish displays of emotion, and I felt kinda pressured by it.


I feel pressured by it, and I am gay /and/ Fe. Their selective focus on status and materialism-derived-status (and status based on loudness, aesthetically or verbally) is insufferable.

Well, I guess we should call them /*Fe*ri-Folk\.

Also, when they're Fi-creative, gay culture can warp them into complete narcissists. Everything becomes the Me Me Me Show.

Put them both together and it gets shady af. Not stereotyping dudes-who-like-dudes. Normative monosexual queer male behaviour, en masse in US America, tends to create groupthink through mutual Fe and create a sanctuary of self-masturbatory no-holds-barred Fi expressions and a very narrow scope for Fe-valuers to gaze through. Sexually-charged and focused on other gay males due to physical similarities-- all maculine-normative bodies to some degree-- and hyperfocus due to implicitations of mate-selection.... Leads to a snowball of homogeneity that's paradoxically premised in "individuality".

SOURCE: Being out and gay for 11.5 years in USA


----------



## Kerik_S

Zamyatin said:


> Yeah, from what I've seen of the gay subculture in the US by being around my brother, that seems pretty accurate. The "flamboyant" stereotype itself is mostly Fe peacocking, and the people who live in gay neighborhoods like Chicago's boytown tend to do so for the sense of community and connection with people of a shared identity, so lots of alphas and betas. There's also a lot of focus on your place within the gay community (twink, bear, drag, etc) and there seems to be a fairly strict social hierarchy. My ILE brother once told me about how "his" group (he self-identifies as "twink") is vertically organized, with the prettiest boys acting like royalty at the top and getting privileges from the people with authority, while the rest are expected to show respect. There are usually defined leader/authority figures in the community who keep newcomers in line and protect the interests of the community. These leaders are generally professionals and upper-class, lots of lawyers and doctors, and they use a combination of money and personal influence to ostracize people who violate the norms of their group.
> 
> The entire idea makes me vaguely uncomfortable, but my brother doesn't seem to mind it. I'm not sure if it's the people he hangs around with or reflective of the insular nature of the gay community, but I didn't see many gay people from the serious quadras around him. The serious gay people I know are less immersed in the gay community and seemed to be more integrated with the rest of society.


Boystown. Good memz of Lakeview district. As long as I go with a clearly non-normative woman or enby. Otherwise, I'm a target.  I had my first "out" summer with my first boyfriend there. My girlfriends and my bf went there and pretended we were an offbeat version of Queer As Folk:

Queer As Moron


----------



## Kerik_S

Entropic said:


> It's not just the gay culture but the entire LGBTQ culture imo. This is the same reason why I avoid associating myself with the LGBTQ as a whole. To clarify, not sure if you've ever been at or observed Gay or similar LGBTQ-motivated parades, but Fe is just a part of the movement. Especially beta seems very prominent in transgender and queer circles. I'm a member in a major Facebook group for transgender people and it's the same thing in there; lots and lots of betas, especially NF women. It leads to some hilarious catfighting though.
> 
> Addendum: It's not just LGBTQ but the feminist movement is like this as well, by and large, at least this neofeminism that's been on the rise the past decade that tries to incorporate intersectionalism etc.


Beta NFs actually tend to duck the SJW thing or be highly critical of the dysfunctional lines of rhetoric that somehow pass for "constructive communication" (when they really are just glorified catfights). That, or I'm just seriously on the outs with most people of my type and EIEs.


----------



## Entropic

Kerik_S said:


> Beta NFs actually tend to duck the SJW thing or be highly critical of the dysfunctional lines of rhetoric that somehow pass for "constructive communication" (when they really are just glorified catfights). That, or I'm just seriously on the outs with most people of my type and EIEs.


Think you find both NFs on that spectrum in general, though I am not sure when and how SJW became such an offense going from a person who simply has strong opinions on the rights of other people, especially minority people, to the equivalent of a fedora-tipping white knight but a moralizing version thereof. It just becomes a way to brush away genuinely good criticism imo. Rarely have I actually run into a person who was a genuine SJW as in they do not practice what they preach and their position is bigoted. If anything, that would be something like TERFs. They fit the label of being an SJW.


----------



## Kerik_S

Entropic said:


> Right, you mean people who identify as transgender for being transgender, no, I do not understand that logic either because to me "transgender" is a descriptor of my social place in in society as it describes my relationship that I have with current existing views on gender and where I fit into that matrix. It does not, however, say anything about my actual sense of self or identity. Some people just seem to take that place they are designated to be who they are though. Additionally, these people also seem to be the most vocal about taking pride in being trans etc. I wonder if that's also distantly related to Fe logic, seeing social place as being reflective of your person since it seems to me that Fe types often understand their sense of self and identity based on other people's attitudes towards you.


Before you mentioned Fe reasoning ("logic"-- lol, you L types), as I was reading your sentence "Some people just seem to take that place they are designated to be who they are though," I was thinking "Fe alert Fe alert." That's why the trans and/or nonbinary people who are vocal about it in that way tend /not/ to disassociate with the LGBTQ umbrella and become, honestly, just as annoying of SJWs as anyone else.

Identity politics are annoying. Like really annoying

I'm more in line with having "I'm a dude who likes dudes" in my identity bc I don't like to associate with "insular" gatekeeping subculture label that "gay man" implicates


----------



## Kerik_S

The_Wanderer said:


> I agree. Identity politics as a whole seems to have a very strong Beta NF slant to it.


lol. I feel like such an outcast bc I literally just posted "Identity politics are annoying."


----------



## Kerik_S

Entropic said:


> Think you find both NFs on that spectrum in general, though I am not sure when and how SJW became such an offense going from a person who simply has strong opinions on the rights of other people, especially minority people, to the equivalent of a fedora-tipping white knight but a moralizing version thereof. It just becomes a way to brush away genuinely good criticism imo. Rarely have I actually run into a person who was a genuine SJW as in they do not practice what they preach and their position is bigoted. If anything, that would be something like TERFs. They fit the label of being an SJW.


[cringe] TERFs. I've never met but one SJW non-TERF in the TQ side of LGBPTQ, and they was nonbinary. (I use singular they with singular pronoun verb conjugations when people insist on auxiliary pronouns as their primary.)

On teh intarwebz, though. Gah.

We may have different views of SJWs. If yours is centered on hypocrisy/bigotry or a lack of follow-through: No, through your scope, I don't see many "SJWs" either.

But, since I see them as people-- regardless of whether they practice what they preach-- who destroy the line of communication simply by virtue of the way they communicate.

Their Fe should know better, so I can only imagine that they're so hell-bent on making themselves stand out, that they become unscrupulous and build more walls than bridges. So much vitriol from people who are supposedly interested in justice-- so I give them the moniker SJW to ironically separate them in my mind.

That's how I get all aristocratic on their dysfunctional, counterproductive asses.

Ironically, their overuse of the word "problematic" is problematic


----------



## Entropic

Kerik_S said:


> Before you mentioned Fe reasoning ("logic"-- lol, you L types), as I was reading your sentence "Some people just seem to take that place they are designated to be who they are though," I was thinking "Fe alert Fe alert." That's why the trans and/or nonbinary people who are vocal about it in that way tend /not/ to disassociate with the LGBTQ umbrella and become, honestly, just as annoying of SJWs as anyone else.
> 
> Identity politics are annoying. Like really annoying
> 
> I'm more in line with having "I'm a dude who likes dudes" in my identity bc I don't like to associate with "insular" gatekeeping subculture label that "gay man" implicates


Yeah, I definitely agree and while I am certain Fi types can do this as well, I do find that it tends to be Fe types in my experience, who are more likely to do that. Which is no offense to Fe types, but it's just my personal observation of how it tends to play out. 



Kerik_S said:


> [cringe] TERFs. I've never met but one SJW non-TERF in the TQ side of LGBPTQ, and they was nonbinary. (I use singular they with singular pronoun verb conjugations when people insist on auxiliary pronouns as their primary.)
> 
> On teh intarwebz, though. Gah.
> 
> We may have different views of SJWs. If yours is centered on hypocrisy/bigotry or a lack of follow-through: No, through your scope, I don't see many "SJWs" either.
> 
> But, since I see them as people-- regardless of whether they practice what they preach-- who destroy the line of communication simply by virtue of the way they communicate.
> 
> Their Fe should know better, so I can only imagine that they're so hell-bent on making themselves stand out, that they become unscrupulous and build more walls than bridges. So much vitriol from people who are supposedly interested in justice-- so I give them the moniker SJW to ironically separate them in my mind.
> 
> That's how I get all aristocratic on their dysfunctional, counterproductive asses.
> 
> Ironically, their overuse of the word "problematic" is problematic


Haha, well by that logic I would be an SJW but I certainly do not see or experience myself to be one. I do see myself as having strong opinions but SWJ? Nah. I care for my rights and to not have them infringed on and I'll be vocal about that, simply. 

With that said, I'd never call other people names or the like so I don't do that kind of vitriol because I think it's unproductive and then you are just lowering yourself to that level and pretty much live up to their expectations of you. I'll logically argue as to why I think they are wrong, though.


----------



## Kerik_S

Entropic said:


> Yeah, I definitely agree and while I am certain Fi types can do this as well, I do find that it tends to be Fe types in my experience, who are more likely to do that. Which is no offense to Fe types, but it's just my personal observation of how it tends to play out.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, well by that logic I would be an SJW but I certainly do not see or experience myself to be one. I do see myself as having strong opinions but SWJ? Nah. I care for my rights and to not have them infringed on and I'll be vocal about that, simply.
> 
> With that said, I'd never call other people names or the like so I don't do that kind of vitriol because I think it's unproductive and then you are just lowering yourself to that level and pretty much live up to their expectations of you. I'll logically argue as to why I think they are wrong, though.


Yeah. Logical arguments are fine.

It's hypocritical for Fe users to be talking about the ethical ramifications of an issue while simultaneously destroying the dialogue in which the ethics could be constructively addressed. Like you: You own that you care for _your_ rights and to not have _your_ rights infringed (Fi). If people have the nerve to be like "It's such a harmful issue to [insert group here] because [x], and I can't believe you're such [expletives] for being insensitive to that. Bigots! Rawwr!"

That's intellectually dishonest. They'd be better off admitting that they care more about their taking offense than they actually do about the social problems they use to shield themselves from being told they're an asshole.

　
If it's logic, stick to logic. If it's ethics, they need to make it clear that they're focusing on their intrapersonal ethics and not hide behind in_*ter*_personal as a way to just spout off at the mouth. It ruins it for the people who actually give a shit. Even if you are personally pissed: If your aim is to correct one instance of behavior against one other person, correct them. Be pissed even. Be confrontational.

But, some of these people claim to care about "curbing the problem in society as a whole" while simultaneously ruining any chance of reconciliation with their opposition, and the way they phrase things seems so obviously emotionally-affected-- and their focus is so on their personal feelings-- that it's implausible to believe they're actually putting others first. And most people can see that and are totally turned off. It's dialogue-repellant.


----------



## Kerik_S

@Entropic ,

I'll lean into someone more aggressively (A) If I've made it clear it's a personal issue to me rather than a social problem, or (B) if I've already tried the Fe arguments (and then Fe+Ti arguments, and sparing Ni+Ti arguments).... Then I'll be more self-concerned.

Either approach is fine. It's just a matter of recusing yourself as Judge Of The Whole System if your intent is only to be the Jury and Executioner Of One Person


----------



## Vermillion

Kerik_S said:


> Yeah. Logical arguments are fine.
> 
> It's hypocritical for Fe users to be talking about the ethical ramifications of an issue while simultaneously destroying the dialogue in which the ethics could be constructively addressed. Like you: You own that you care for _your_ rights and to not have _your_ rights infringed (Fi). If people have the nerve to be like "It's such a harmful issue to [insert group here] because [x], and I can't believe you're such [expletives] for being insensitive to that. Bigots! Rawwr!"
> 
> That's intellectually dishonest. They'd be better off admitting that they care more about their taking offense than they actually do about the social problems they use to shield themselves from being told they're an asshole.
> 
> 
> If it's logic, stick to logic. If it's ethics, they need to make it clear that they're focusing on their intrapersonal ethics and not hide behind in_*ter*_personal as a way to just spout off at the mouth. It ruins it for the people who actually give a shit. Even if you are personally pissed: If your aim is to correct one instance of behavior against one other person, correct them. Be pissed even. Be confrontational.
> 
> But, some of these people claim to care about "curbing the problem in society as a whole" while simultaneously ruining any chance of reconciliation with their opposition, and the way they phrase things seems so obviously emotionally-affected-- and their focus is so on their personal feelings-- that it's implausible to believe they're actually putting others first. And most people can see that and are totally turned off. It's dialogue-repellant.


I see where you're coming from and why you think that behavior is dialogue-repellent. It is, when it is overblown. But when it is reasonable, it is actually very necessary.

Consider this. If a bunch of my acquaintances were being racist as fuck towards black people, and there is a black guy in the room, what you're apparently saying I should tell them is "hey stop being an asshole when Ben is around, that could really hurt his feelings". Attacking the _instance_ of behavior. And what happens if Ben isn't around? Does it make what those people say any more acceptable? Do words and actions have to have a visible impact for them to be offensive? I'm gonna tell them they're being racist regardless of who is there. 

Also, why only attack the instance of behavior? What if a racist person only rarely says mean shit? Does bullshit only become bullshit when it's expressed? Is a person any less racist just cause they don't speak their thoughts out loud? Of course not. That's why people attack the principle behind the behavior and not simply the behavior itself. The principle that "people of some race are inferior to those of other races" could cause a whole HOST of different behaviors, and it is that principle that causes those instances. If you were to simply tell them what they did in context A is uncool, what about them doing the same thing in context B? What about D15? What about Y2361, Clause II? All those behaviors stem from an incorrect and misguided principle.

So yeah, if some awful shit is going on, it's perfectly acceptable to say "It's such a harmful issue to [insert group here] because [x], and I can't believe you're such [expletives] for being insensitive to that." Because sometimes IT IS harmful to a whole group of people to be offensive and arrogant. Of course, you should be mature enough to know when to say it and when to attempt to reason with the opposition, and you shouldn't let off too much steam. 

Plus, it really devalues the intention behind the action when you say attacking the principle should always be prefixed with "this hurts my personal feelings". Maybe my personal feelings aren't the problem here. Maybe X is actually a real social problem people are trying to oppose, one moral correction at a time. "This hurts my personal feelings" makes it seem rather selfish and detracts from the group you are ACTUALLY defending. Plus, it makes it look emotionally -- rather than morally -- driven.

If you are mature enough to know those things -- how to express yourself sanely and being willing to apologize if you misrepresented a group you don't belong to -- by all means, *attack the principle*.

I want to add an analogy. If you're trying to destroy a tree by pulling out each individual leaf instead of hacking at the base, you're gonna find a whole host of new trees around it by the time you're done. You don't kill a weed by pulling out each part. You rip it out of the soil... with care towards the surrounding flowers, of course.


----------



## Zamyatin

Kerik_S said:


> Beta NFs actually tend to duck the SJW thing or be highly critical of the dysfunctional lines of rhetoric that somehow pass for "constructive communication" (when they really are just glorified catfights). That, or I'm just seriously on the outs with most people of my type and EIEs.


Well, considering the quadras are assumed to be evenly distributed in society, there are around 2.3 billion betas out there. SJW/Identity Politics are not by any means views shared by a majority of betas. Seriously, if 2.3 billion people shared the same views on something the world would change almost immediately, especially when you're talking about people as politically oriented as betas. Betas do seem to be over-represented in the SJW/ID politics circles, but those groups are tiny. It's kind of similar to the way gammas (especially NT) seem to be heavily over-represented in libertarian circles, despite the fact that the vast majority of gammas are not libertarian and very few people in general are libertarian.

In other words, given SJW views/libertarian views, beta/gamma respectively is likely, but the opposite is not true by any means.


----------



## Kerik_S

_NOTE: There's a lot of use of things like "If [universal you] does this, then [universal you] need to think about [whatever].

It's universal, and I make no attempts at assuming any of you are the kind of belligerent pseudo-activists I see rampant just about everywhere these days. Because those people are on FB and there's a lot more people using FB than PerC so you'll eventually strike a shit-mine or shit-field of shit if you dig into a world of shit like FB social justice.

I don't feel like editing for tact, so the best I can do is say "read every you as a universal You"

　
_I'm not thrilled about the annoying, egregious use of [Red-typefaced You] in my post, but I feel strongly about this so I didn't want to filter the actual sentiments by using words like "[impersonal pronoun '_one_'" in place of universal You.



Night Huntress said:


> I see where you're coming from and why you think that behavior is dialogue-repellent. It is, when it is overblown. But when it is reasonable, it is actually very necessary.


I'm talking about instances in which it is so overblown that people start throwing out phrases like, "Poe's Law".

　


> Consider this. If a bunch of my acquaintances were being racist as fuck towards black people, and there is a black guy in the room, what you're apparently saying I should tell them is "hey stop being an asshole when Ben is around, that could really hurt his feelings". Attacking the _instance_ of behavior.


Yes, if you're taking a Fi stance for how it affects _only you_, focus on the instance. If your focus is on how other people are affected, you need to be more careful. If you narrow it down to a social problem manifesting in the context of someone that's actually there, it's pretty obvious that it's different than talking to the masses on public forums. You can use the pressure of the sit uation to express your outrage for having to see someone visibly affected in person. 

Unfortunately, if you take that approach in a forum where you're removed in proximity to the social problem, it usually comes across as Holier Than Thou or caricature.

　


> And what happens if Ben isn't around? Does it make what those people say any more acceptable? Do words and actions have to have a visible impact for them to be offensive? I'm gonna tell them they're being racist regardless of who is there.


Yes, but if you're talking about things like microaggressions, where the whole premise is that it's "a casual, learned [_something_-'ism]", and something that doesn't imply malice, talking to the person like they committed some horrible thing makes no sense with the theory you're espousing.

"Here are the sociological reasons for why you'd say something hurtful and not see it as hurtful, _you racist_," makes zero sense. It doesn't take away the impact, but using loaded words for complicated issues is counterproductive.

If you care enough about a more subtle, ingrained, pervasive behavior being curbed... treating people like the outward, mean, deserving-of-shame people... that's counter-intuitive and will thwart progress.

It's Fi without Fe and that's never a good idea and neither is the inverse.

　


> What if a racist person only rarely says mean shit? Does bullshit only become bullshit when it's expressed? Is a person any less racist just cause they don't speak their thoughts out loud?


Racism is defined as prejudice and discriminatory acts together. If the person is controlling themselves and aware of their _prejudice_, calling them a word that implies actions being taken (that they know they're not taking) gets into thought-policing (even if it is something that's terrible and prejudice and deserves correction)... and it'll just put the person off, usually in a way that will cut-off any chance at explaining how their prejudice occasionally leaks into actions.

I'm just giving you the sociological definition of "-'isms": Both prejudicial cognition _*and*_ discriminatory behavior. One without the other is not the -ism. Prejudice without discrimination is simply prejudice. Still bad, but you have to take a different approach because people are often less willing to dig into their cognitions than their behaviors.




> The principle that "people of some race are inferior to those of other races" could cause a whole HOST of different behaviors, and it is that principle that causes those instances.


Plenty of people who don't even believe in racial supremacy say "accidental racist" jokes. It doesn't mean they hate anybody: It means they're tools parroting flawed humor. The _carte blanche_ approach to social justice _does. not. work._ The issues involve cognition, affects, _and _behaviors. And to treat it like it can all be wrapped up in an oversimplified bow is _way too myopic, _and the people who have worked out some kinks in their cognition/affect/behavior and not others will usually just get so defensive that any further discourse is pointless.

The second you put them off, for no other reason than refusing to address the social problem in a tactical way based o n the Fe read you need to try a nd get... that's when they, personally, make it only about that sole instance and completely dismiss you . So, the very means you use to get to try and reach some perceived end actually preclude that end from ever likely coming to fru ition. 

The discourse in flawed. Period. Part of the reason people who are "accidental assholes" keep being assholes is because the people who are correcting them have zero discipline to develop tactics that will do anything.

And the strategy they do apply is usually deeply incongruent with how even social scientists will say makes any sense, given how people tend to react with their self-serving biases. To pretend people exist in vacuums without social-psychological effects is folly, plain and simple.

　


> If you were to simply tell them what they did in context A is uncool, what about them doing the same thing in context B? What about D15? What about Y2361, Clause II? All those behaviors stem from an incorrect and misguided principle.


Yes, but those things need to be addressed with more tact. And with compassion, because the person may not have _any malice whatsoever_, and using words that used to be thrown at people who were genocidal and supremacist... it's nonsensical and monomaniacal.

　
So yeah, if some awful shit is going on, it's perfectly acceptable to say "It's such a harmful issue to [insert group here] because [x], and I can't believe you're such [expletives] for being insensitive to that."[/QUOTE]

Not if (A) You're aware of how belief-preservation works, that attitudes are often decoupled from behavior and vice-versa, and (B) Knowing that you know that, still take a guns-blazing approach.

It's not some opportunity to vent your frustrations for truly malevolent people in th e world. It's a delicate issue, and if you're going to explain "Because [X]" and the n pretend like you know nothing about sociological and social psychological theory is so palpably insulting and dishonest to the person you're trying to correct, they can easily pick everyt hing you say apart.

If you truly care, find another way than what's in your quote. It's not about you.

　


> Because sometimes IT IS harmful to a whole group of people to be offensive and arrogant.


It always is harmful to the whole group of people, and that's why-- when you decide to talk about it from a group perspective-- you have to compartmentalize your personal feelings on the issue as much as makes sense given the situation. I have no tolerance for people who aren't in the affected group to act like they're pioneers for that group: _That's_ arrogant, and it makes it about the feelings of the out-group trying to speak for the people in the in-group. Unfortunately, oppressed people do have a sense of group identity, and if they're already being publicly screwed by being in that in-group, don't speak about them as if you're one of them. It wreaks of privilege.

_The ultimate example of privilege is deciding how the oppressed should react to something. It takes away what little social power they have to self-determination._

　


> Of course, you should be mature enough to know when to say it and when to attempt to reason with the opposition, and you shouldn't let off too much steam.


_Okay, then *you [personal, individual you]* are not part of the problem I'm addressing.
_But, it _is_ extremely common out there with all the 12-year-olds-who-don't-post-their-age out there. And it's often 24 year olds acting like 12 year olds. And it's not too weird to see the occasional 36 year old doing the same crap.



> Plus, it really devalues the intention behind the action when you say attacking the principle should always be prefixed with "this hurts my personal feelings".


No, I was saying if you want to take the no-holds-barred and "letting off steam" route-- exclusively Fi-- then you have more room for error.

If you're going to use _any_ Fe argument whatsoever, you're symbolically divorcing it from yourself and need to engage tact to be effective.

It's not one or the other. It's just knowing what standpoint you're coming from, and being more discursively responsibility when and if you choose to expand the focus outward to the group outside yourself.

It's both _what you think I'm saying_ (Fi only for Fi statements), plus _what you are saying that is just what I said, worded in a more obvious manner_ (Fe sentiments for Fe statements, without prefacing or devaluing with overly-wrought Fi statements)... Picking your battles, basically, and then battling wisely.

I will say that I didn't explicitly mention that it's a good idea to avoid Fi statements when discussing Fe, unless you're talking about the personal emotive impact that group members of the oppressed minority likely feel or have expressed that they feel.

　


> If you are mature enough to know those things -- how to express yourself sanely and being willing to apologize if you misrepresented a group you don't belong to -- by all means, *attack the principle*.


I believe we're on the same page here.

My experience on the internet at large is that the loudest voices in the social justice choir are often the most tactless and counterproductive, and that's not either of our faults. It just is.


----------



## Kerik_S

Zamyatin said:


> Well, considering the quadras are assumed to be evenly distributed in society, there are around 2.3 billion betas out there. SJW/Identity Politics are not by any means views shared by a majority of betas. Seriously, if 2.3 billion people shared the same views on something the world would change almost immediately, especially when you're talking about people as politically oriented as betas. Betas do seem to be over-represented in the SJW/ID politics circles, but those groups are tiny. It's kind of similar to the way gammas (especially NT) seem to be heavily over-represented in libertarian circles, despite the fact that the vast majority of gammas are not libertarian and very few people in general are libertarian.
> 
> In other words, given SJW views/libertarian views, beta/gamma respectively is likely, but the opposite is not true by any means.


That's why I specifically said "Beta NFs" and not "Betas". And only spoke about how we feel about the discourse as Beta NFs.

　
IEIs, EIEs, SLEs _and_ LSIs are more likely-- as you said-- to seem heavily overrepresented in social justice circles.

However, IEIs and EIEs seem less likely to become the tactless SJWs (I say "SJW" as a diminutive epithet rather than the neutral "in a social justice circle" as all Betas seem) because their strong Fe makes them sensitive to realizing that tactlessness will destroy the dialogue and preclude progress.

I'm not saying Beta STs always lack tact, but they're less likely to self-correct if they're surrounded by tactlessness in their forums.


----------



## Verity

Zamyatin said:


> Well, considering the quadras are assumed to be evenly distributed in society, there are around 2.3 billion betas out there. SJW/Identity Politics are not by any means views shared by a majority of betas. Seriously, if 2.3 billion people shared the same views on something the world would change almost immediately, especially when you're talking about people as politically oriented as betas. Betas do seem to be over-represented in the SJW/ID politics circles, but those groups are tiny. It's kind of similar to the way gammas (especially NT) seem to be heavily over-represented in libertarian circles, despite the fact that the vast majority of gammas are not libertarian and very few people in general are libertarian.
> 
> In other words, given SJW views/libertarian views, beta/gamma respectively is likely, but the opposite is not true by any means.


In my experience some of the most vocal opposers of SJWs also tend to be Betas tbh. It's as if Beta politics nearly always come as a reaction to other percieved political trends, while Gamma ideas tend to be more proactive, or atleast that's something I've noticed when discussing politics with the few Betas I know.

This guy(SLE) is such a good example of a counter-SJW Beta btw.





Notice how most of what he says is not based on the actual facts of society, but it's more a reaction to other people's opinions.


----------



## Zamyatin

Kerik_S said:


> That's why I specifically said "Beta NFs" and not "Betas". And only spoke about how we feel about the discourse as Beta NFs.
> 
> 
> IEIs, EIEs, SLEs _and_ LSIs are more likely-- as you said-- to seem heavily overrepresented in social justice circles.
> 
> However, IEIs and EIEs seem less likely to become the tactless SJWs (I say "SJW" as a diminutive epithet rather than the neutral "in a social justice circle" as all Betas seem) because their strong Fe makes them sensitive to realizing that tactlessness will destroy the dialogue and preclude progress.
> 
> I'm not saying Beta STs always lack tact, but they're less likely to self-correct if they're surrounded by tactlessness in their forums.


It's a fair point, but beta NF can be incredibly rigid once they believe they've "found the truth". After all, a very large number of political revolutionaries are NF. Castro and Guevara are two commonly cited examples of EIEs, I believe Trotsky was IEI and although anarchist Emma Goldman's type has been hard for me to pin down, her oratory skills, negativism and extroversion make EIE a very plausible typing.

In my experience the worst offenders do tend to be beta ST, but I've met rather insensitive NFs as well, who for various reasons including ideology offend others because they see compromise as something they can't reconcile with their beliefs. "Less likely" is probably true though.


----------



## Kerik_S

Verity said:


> This guy(SLE) is such a good example of a counter-SJW Beta btw.


America is basically 1/3-Swedish, 1/3 actually-barbaric, and 1/3 wanting to leave the country because of the other 2/3. xD


----------



## Kerik_S

Night Huntress said:


> But that's the thing. I don't think a self-absorbed, righteously indignant attitude is caused by Fi specifically in the first place. So whether in Fi valuers or Fe valuers, that attitude isn't a byproduct of an overuse of the function. It's simply rude and distasteful behavior, and that can be channeled through either Fe or Fi, depending on what function you value.


That's possible. You've really given me compelling reason to reconsider my stance I mentioned even just as recently as a few minutes ago, because you seem very convinced and convicted that these functions manifest differently than I've come to believe.

While I stand behind my previous statements in terms of the basis of "Fi" that I've been using thusfar, I respect your opinion enough to think "Gee, maybe I need to look at this differently."

　


Night Huntress said:


> The vast majority of SJWs -- productive and pathetic ones combined -- are beta NF, because the social justice movement is primarily beta. So they will likely have Fe+Ni arguments for their position. (That does not mean Fe+Ni produces bad arguments).
> 
> The causes you support and hold real conviction for are nearly always explained away through your valued -- especially egoic -- functions, because your ego functions are the easiest method for you to express yourself time and again.


As I stated above, I think the people who are more likely to call-out the "pathetic ones" are actually likely to be Beta NF themselves. They may use tactless arguments themselves, actually (as you've assumed I do, selectively targeted at them, while being somehow more sparing and respectful to "racists and sexists").

It's just a matter of Ni being able to break down what to focus on. It doesn't mean they'll focus on it in a productive manner.

Beta NFs who come to the conclusion that the discourse is "broken on both ends" could use that as fuel to be just as "discourse-breaking" as the people they're focusing on. Meaning: They're like how you assume I am or was being.

While others are how I actually am outside the context of a limited forum.

　


Night Huntress said:


> I also do not believe someone who does not value a function can overuse it to the extent they ignore their egoic functions as ego functions ALWAYS take precedence ultimately. So the entire argument of self-absorbed behavior being due to an over-usage of Fi does not seem to hold much water to me.


That could very well be true

I think it's a matter of Strong-vs-Weak rather than Valued-vs-Subdued, though.

So, in terms of _*NeFi //// FiNe*_ NFs and *NiFe /// FeNi* NFs: Both are equally likely in my eyes to overuse Fi.

Perhaps the ones with Contact rather than Inert Fi will overuse it only when prompted by outside influence of what others are talking about (the contact influence)-- and the generally "acceptability" of being brazen and outspoken about how they feel about things--...

Anyway, I'm just stream-of-consciousness'ing at this point bc there are many ways in which typology could frame these constructed categories of people.


----------



## Vermillion

Kerik_S said:


> I don't agree
> 
> This has already been discussed in this forum within the past few dozen posts.​There's no clear consensus on this, as indicated by the variance of viewpoints in the portions I quoted.
> 
> I'm not trying to slam you with quotes or some kind of bandwagon appeal-- I'm just saying I don't really know how else to look at this other than to say I disagree with you as to how Betas are represented in social justice circles, and that people disagree with me, and that people disagree with _both of us_.


You've agreed in a quote above yourself that betas tend to be overrepresented in social justice circles. I went back to read your full post and you said that beta NFs are not likely to be tactless SJWs. In my experience, I've seen a wide variety of beta NFs -- there are those who are progressive, idealistic, and productive about their causes, AND there are those who are entrenched in the need for expressing their emotions honestly and silencing/alienating other groups in the process. 

Also, taking quotes out of context misrepresents post content a lot. For example, Zamyatin's "SJW/identity politics are by no means views shared by a majority of betas" -- the rest of his post continues to explain that while the vast majority of some quadras do not share a specific view, people who share some similar views tend to be of the same quadra.



> Beta NFs, as far as I can tell, will be very likely to rip-apart gender roles. I don't see how this applies, from my experience. Strong-N(i or e)-valuers seem to be pretty quick at dismissing gender roles.


　
It isn't about espousing gender roles. It is about branding an entire label of people with an accusation instead of judging people individually, which is aristocrat > democrat. In my experience, thinking in terms of labels and hierarchies is also a very beta thing to do. 



> And from that ideal stems the _preserve what I want to say and how I want to say it_ attitude, even if that bold self-expression is ruining the dialogue by being unchecked.
> 
> And from that point, this argumentation has gone full-circle.
> 
> What I just quoted is the entire psychological basis for SJW-ism. Self-expression over productive dialogue. Self over group. Fi over Fe.
> 
> Enjoying your life of grandstanding while not paying enough attention to how you could be shooting yourself-- and all the oppressed you're vocally representing-- in their proverbial feet.


I disagree; I think this is an oversimplification. Anyone can care about self-expression in _general_, but Fe is typically what cares about authentic, unadulterated emotional reactions/expressions. A lot of Fe types get pissed off by types with weak, unvalued Fe, because they are often devoid of expression and do not feel encouraged by attempts to make them express themselves more. Authentic emotional expression that matches internal feelings is very much the realm of Fe (no wonder the only Fi type with markedly dramatic, bold, and honest emotional expression is the xEE, with demonstrative Fe. The demonstrative typically works alongside the ego to assist it in its goals.)

So things like "Sing it out loud!" "Don't keep quiet!" "Unleash the force of your passion!" are typically Fe formulations. The current social justice movement is all about bold self-expression of that kind, so the ideals it espouses are very beta and it makes sense that the people it would appeal to are also mostly betas. 

Then can you see why a lot of unhealthy Fe types _also_ silence other groups in favor of having the freedom to express themselves as authentically as possible? See my previous post for why I think this does not necessarily come from a place of unchecked Fi.

Calling Fe "productive dialogue" while Fi self-absorbed "grandstanding" seems to come from a place of personal bias, especially as even people with weak Fe are perfectly capable of having productive and tactful discussions.



Kerik_S said:


> You've chosen to believe that I posted that as a _description of *Fi-VALUERS*_ when that's not what I said. I was clearly speaking about a select group of people who I painstakingly outlined (and posted in red text over and over and over again) as immature people who _choose_ to not temper their Fi.
> 
> Yes, it's implied I was talking about people using Fi in an unhealthy way.
> 
> No, it was not implied I was talking about Fi-valuers, or assuming they're all unhealthy.
> 
> Again, you assume I don't take an "objective didactic" approach _outside the confines of a subforum in which we're talking about people grouped into 4 constructed quadras._ And, I also made sure to address that by mentioning that I didn't think quadras had much to do with this. Rather unchecked use of Fi. That's it.
> 
> You're continuing to assume I take this approach outside of PerC. And your explicit citation of your reasoning for this was something that only made you seem more presumptuous.
> 
> Context
> 
> You're choosing to believe that I do that, even after I've said I don't.


Let me clarify. I do not assume you're a mean or disrespectful individual. However, I do not understand why you were so vocal about not condemning discriminatory individuals, going as far as to say tact should always predominate over harsh dismissal/insult when engaging these individuals, but readily said immature SJWs (as per your definition) should be called out and branded with the list of words you used. 

Technically, both of them are guilty of similar things -- silencing innocent voices, playing up stereotypes, and being assholes in general. So why condemn one group and educate another? -- that's my question. In my eyes, it is a contradiction that I'd like an explanation for. Nothing more and nothing less.


----------



## Vermillion

Kerik_S said:


> That's possible. You've really given me compelling reason to reconsider my stance I mentioned even just as recently as a few minutes ago, because you seem very convinced and convicted that these functions manifest differently than I've come to believe.
> 
> While I stand behind my previous statements in terms of the basis of "Fi" that I've been using thusfar, I respect your opinion enough to think "Gee, maybe I need to look at this differently."


I appreciate the reconsideration, thanks.



> As I stated above, I think the people who are more likely to call-out the "pathetic ones" are actually likely to be Beta NF themselves. They may use tactless arguments themselves, actually (as you've assumed I do, selectively targeted at them, while being somehow more sparing and respectful to "racists and sexists").
> 
> It's just a matter of Ni being able to break down what to focus on. It doesn't mean they'll focus on it in a productive manner.
> 
> Beta NFs who come to the conclusion that the discourse is "broken on both ends" could use that as fuel to be just as "discourse-breaking" as the people they're focusing on. Meaning: They're like how you assume I am or was being.
> 
> While others are how I actually am outside the context of a limited forum.


Yes, like I said -- they exist on both sides of the discourse. 



> That could very well be true
> 
> I think it's a matter of Strong-vs-Weak rather than Valued-vs-Subdued, though.
> 
> So, in terms of _*NeFi //// FiNe*_ NFs and *NiFe /// FeNi* NFs: Both are equally likely in my eyes to overuse Fi.
> 
> Perhaps the ones with Contact rather than Inert Fi will overuse it only when prompted by outside influence of what others are talking about (the contact influence)-- and the generally "acceptability" of being brazen and outspoken about how they feel about things--...
> 
> Anyway, I'm just stream-of-consciousness'ing at this point bc there are many ways in which typology could frame these constructed categories of people.


Typically I find that over-usage occurs within the context of valued functions, because:
a) People find it uncomfortable and awkward to continue using their superego for prolonged periods and their ego tends to take over after a while; that or they exit the situation they're supposed to play pretend in

b) People are good at their id block but systematically and naturally place their ego's input as having higher value than the id block. The ignoring function is brushed aside obviously, and the demonstrative manifests as an undercurrent to the ego's goals, so it's a pretty dutiful right-hand man that doesn't step out of line much. In fact, people can often mock their own demonstrative.

c) The superid block can be overused when the individual attempts (sometimes in vain) to develop their competence in the area they idealize

d) The ego can be "overused" when it is not supplemented by the input of the superid


----------



## Kerik_S

Not Night-Huntress said:


> Uhm, wut?


The keyword is "unchained."

If you look at that single colloquial sentence and not the entirety of everything I've said, then of course you're going to conclude that I'm somehow talking about all Fi-valuers.

Unchained was my colloquialism for unhealthy.


----------



## Kerik_S

Oh, shit. @_The_Wanderer_ ,

I thought the post I quoted from you was actually Night Huntress reiterating her concerns

EDIT: But, I'll let it stand, because it's clearly a perceived problem of more than one person that I have some bias, and I'd like to address that in real-time


----------



## Kerik_S

Night Huntress said:


> Typically I find that over-usage occurs within the context of valued functions, because:
> a) People find it uncomfortable and awkward to continue using their superego for prolonged periods and their ego tends to take over after a while; that or they exit the situation they're supposed to play pretend in
> 
> b) People are good at their id block but systematically and naturally place their ego's input as having higher value than the id block. The ignoring function is brushed aside obviously, and the demonstrative manifests as an undercurrent to the ego's goals, so it's a pretty dutiful right-hand man that doesn't step out of line much. In fact, people can often mock their own demonstrative.
> 
> c) The superid block can be overused when the individual attempts (sometimes in vain) to develop their competence in the area they idealize
> 
> d) The ego can be "overused" when it is not supplemented by the input of the superid


I'm gonna copypasta this to a plain-text document and save it to my desktop because I don't often think about the blocks in their entirety. They're really only dichtomously-related in the few they have in common: _Valued_-Subdued + _Mental_-Vital + _Strong_-Weak

While I tend to focus on all of them, I focus on that and the way that their 2nd-level (Evaluatory-Situational) and 3rd-level (Bold-Cautious) and even mix in some sometimes-considered-extraneous information of Field-Body + Dynamic-Static (of IEs/IAs) and Internal-External.

I could stand to put some more novel thought into the first three core function dichotomies, though. There's a reason they're blocked together, so I should take that into account.


----------



## Kintsugi

Mordred Phantom said:


> I'm still betting my money on SEE though, you know all my reasons that I've pointed out. You don't overuse the Fi stick for hitting people that do immoral stuff XD


With all due respect....

...who the fuck are you? Lol. 

EDIT: Just realised who you are, LMAO


----------



## Dragheart Luard

The Perfect Storm said:


> With all due respect....
> 
> ...who the fuck are you? Lol.
> 
> EDIT: Just realised who you are, LMAO


Hahaha, confirms that my experiment worked as expected XD username confusing people


----------



## Kintsugi

Mordred Phantom said:


> Hahaha, confirms that my experiment worked as expected XD username confusing people


Totally saw the username before the avatar. When I looked down I was like, "ahhhh...yeah. I vaguely remember a conversation about this."


----------



## Kintsugi

So, after much reflection I have decided to settle with SEE (over ESI) for now. I believe SEE-Fi is most likely (despite many people thinking I'm SEE-Se). I think a large part of it is the difference in how I come across on-line verses how I am in person.

Similarly, I've also retyped as core 6 in Enneagram, too.


----------



## Bash

The Perfect Storm said:


> With all due respect....
> 
> ...who the fuck are you?



Dat Se ego. = )


----------



## Dragheart Luard

The Perfect Storm said:


> So, after much reflection I have decided to settle with SEE (over ESI) for now. I believe SEE-Fi is most likely (despite many people thinking I'm SEE-Se). I think a large part of it is the difference in how I come across on-line verses how I am in person.
> 
> Similarly, I've also retyped as core 6 in Enneagram, too.


I guess that drunk posting is the culprit of that confusion, it may make you come across as more Se heavy than you really are (also may cause issues with Enneagram too). Conclusion, never post if you had too much wine haha.


----------



## Kintsugi

Mordred Phantom said:


> I guess that drunk posting is the culprit of that confusion, it may make you come across as more Se heavy than you really are (also may cause issues with Enneagram too). Conclusion, never post if you had too much wine haha.


Drunk posting is _definitely _a big part of it, lol.

Not that I'm proud of it or anything, I know I can act like a hyperactive tool when I'm under the influence. Honestly, PerC has sort of become a dumping ground for me, a place to express a very different part of my personality that is usually kept tightly under wraps in the real world, like a split-off part of my identity. Truth is, there is probably only one person in the whole world who I trust and have allowed to get close enough to me, who is able to see all the strange, inconsistent, and often contradicting sides of who I am.

For me, this is really where applying typology falls short. It's not so much a criticism of the tool itself (such as Socionics), but more about the traps people inevitably fall into when they try and start putting themselves and others into to neat little boxes. As I've said many times before, out of all the models I have studied, I prefer Socionics the most. I feel that I have reached a stage (finally) where I can appreciate it for what it is without adding all the unnecessary extra layers of complexity to it (i.e. trying to explain and justify EVERYTHING through it).

Now, Enneagram, on the other hand...is still a head-fuck for me, lol. I'm not sure I'll ever feel comfortable with it but I can accept and appreciate that others have gained a lot through studying it. I guess it's just not my kind of thing.

EDIT: Just want to add I also get pissed off when people assume that I give up on Enneagram because I don't have the conceptual/spiritual or whatever capacity to fully grasp it, lol. I've run into that one many a time on this damn forum.


----------



## Entropic

Fuck insomnia.


----------



## Kerik_S

Entropic said:


> Fuck insomnia.


How do you deal with it?

I do melatonin, doxylamine succinate _*(*old-style Unisom, now generic*)*_*,* and occasionally throw in half a diphenhydramine _*(*new-style Unisom, also generic, *"*Benadryl*")*_*.*


----------



## Entropic

Kerik_S said:


> How do you deal with it?
> 
> I do melatonin, doxylamine succinate _*(*old-style Unisom, now generic*)*_*,* and occasionally throw in half a diphenhydramine _*(*new-style Unisom, also generic, *"*Benadryl*")*_*.*


I don't. What happens is that I usually fall asleep dead tired initially, sleep some hours to later wake up and feel as if I slept 8 hours with sunshine and rainbows outside and then I can't sleep. I tend to get up until I feel sleepy which isn't helping the deprivation part but eventually this body should adapt to this shit. The pleasant side-effect of having to change my sleep pattern 180 degrees.


----------



## Kerik_S

Entropic said:


> I don't. What happens is that I usually fall asleep dead tired initially, sleep some hours to later wake up and feel as if I slept 8 hours with sunshine and rainbows outside and then I can't sleep. I tend to get up until I feel sleepy which isn't helping the deprivation part but eventually this body should adapt to this shit. The pleasant side-effect of having to change my sleep pattern 180 degrees.


Eep. Well, your cognition is on-point regardless of sleep deprivation, so perhaps you can deal with a non-24-hour sleep cycle...?

Just be careful-- we're more than our cognition, and the things that lay the groundwork for cognitive health can crumble long before we're aware of it intellectually


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Entropic said:


> I don't. What happens is that I usually fall asleep dead tired initially, sleep some hours to later wake up and feel as if I slept 8 hours with sunshine and rainbows outside and then I can't sleep. I tend to get up until I feel sleepy which isn't helping the deprivation part but eventually this body should adapt to this shit. The pleasant side-effect of having to change my sleep pattern 180 degrees.


Just bookmarked as "Si devaluation example" :wink:


----------



## Entropic

Kerik_S said:


> Eep. Well, your cognition is on-point regardless of sleep deprivation, so perhaps you can deal with a non-24-hour sleep cycle...?
> 
> Just be careful-- we're more than our cognition, and the things that lay the groundwork for cognitive health can crumble long before we're aware of it intellectually


Yeah, I really don't understand why my cognition becomes good as in "focused", the moment I wake up in the night and how I feel tired the rest of the day otherwise, but it doesn't matter since that's why I figured I get up so I can remain somewhat productive since I cannot when I get home due to the deprivation. Can't focus or accomplish much at all.

As for the health part, can't do much about it. It's a part of keeping my job. 



crashbandicoot said:


> Just bookmarked as "Si devaluation example" :wink:


lol. It's not like I got much of a choice anyway. Either it sleeps when I need it to because that's how my current schedule is like or it doesn't. So you just have to will through it because it's not like you can stop going because of it.


----------



## Kintsugi

I'm struggling to understand HP and VS cognitive styles...

I _think _I've got CD and DA covered, they seem pretty straightforward to me. The other two, on the other hand, are a completely head-fuck. I feel like I'm constantly screwing up my attempts at typing others because I haven't fully grasped the styles. I can see where I've gone wrong because of my lack of understanding in this area.

Frustrating. >_>

@_Bash_

Can you explain how Voritical-synergetic cognition works?!


----------



## Inveniet

The Perfect Storm said:


> I'm struggling to understand HP and VS cognitive styles...
> 
> I _think _I've got CD and DA covered, they seem pretty straightforward to me. The other two, on the other hand, are a completely head-fuck. I feel like I'm constantly screwing up my attempts at typing others because I haven't fully grasped the styles. I can see where I've gone wrong because of my lack of understanding in this area.
> 
> Frustrating. >_>
> 
> @_Bash_
> 
> Can you explain how Voritical-synergetic cognition works?!


I use HP as an ESI.
What is so hard about it?
Unlimited POVs, lack of respect for details, ability to generalize anything into a workable format.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

I'm every day more convinced that I have to finish my thesis and nope away from my group. My ethics clash hard with the mindset of my professor, to the point that I feel like he cherrypicks the data that matches his ideas and ditches anything else that contradicts it, despite being factual data.


----------



## Kerik_S

Still obsessed with Rose McGowan's _Broadly_ interview!

Is she a Gamma?


----------



## Captain Mclain

Kerik_S said:


> Still obsessed with Rose McGowan's _Broadly_ interview!
> 
> Is she a Gamma?


ILI perhaps


----------



## Kerik_S

Captain Mclain said:


> ILI perhaps


I was thinking ILE at first. Maybe she's ILI...?


----------



## Kintsugi

hornet said:


> I use HP as an ESI.
> What is so hard about it?
> Unlimited POVs, lack of respect for details, ability to generalize anything into a workable format.


Ah! Thanks, that helps!

This explains why I get pissed off with IEEs (who are also HP, correct?)

I don't think I have enough experience with ESIs. In any case, this does help me conclude that I am SEE over ESI.


----------



## Inveniet

The Perfect Storm said:


> Ah! Thanks, that helps!
> 
> This explains why I get pissed off with IEEs (who are also HP, correct?)
> 
> I don't think I have enough experience with ESIs. In any case, this does help me conclude that I am SEE over ESI.


They are, of course IEE and SLE are even one more step removed from you due to the cog functions.
LII are just alien, pure unadulterated aliens.
IEE are like in another realm with their Ne caring immensely about everything that could be.
SLE are in the same realm (Se/Ni), but unable to care in the same way you do.
Both share the same style.

We ESIs on the other hand are in the same realm (Se/Ni) and care on the same level as you.
We just percieve that realm very differently.

Let say you go out into the world an see that A -> B -> C.
You go and tell me that you observed this causal chain.
To me it sounds plausible and and accurate since we are both similar in what aspects of reality is valued.
I go and test your observation out and sure enough A -> B -> C.

Then I go speak to a LII and an ILI and have a couple of discussions about this topic.
They say a bunch of stuff and after it I'm like, what if A -> C -> B also?

I play it out in my head and see how that would work out, I might then stumble across the idea of B-> A -> C too.
Now it turns out after experimenting in the real world that while A -> C -> B is possible to do, B -> A -> C is impossible.
But I don't discard it fully, I keep the POV stored inside.

Then later when you tell me about a new chain of events, D -> E -> F.
I will take the POV blueprints of both D -> F -> E and E -> D -> F.
And this time not only the first one is possible, but the second is possible too.

In other words I have generalized something that worked and something that didn't work.
And made them both work for me in the future in a seemingly unrelated chain of events.
Am I making sense here?


----------



## Kintsugi

hornet said:


> In other words I have generalized something that worked and something that didn't work.
> And made them both work for me in the future in a seemingly unrelated chain of events.
> Am I making sense here?


Yes, I think so.


----------



## Vermillion

hornet said:


> They are, of course IEE and SLE are even one more step removed from you due to the cog functions.
> LII are just alien, pure unadulterated aliens.
> IEE are like in another realm with their Ne caring immensely about everything that could be.
> SLE are in the same realm (Se/Ni), but unable to care in the same way you do.
> Both share the same style.
> 
> We ESIs on the other hand are in the same realm (Se/Ni) and care on the same level as you.
> We just percieve that realm very differently.
> 
> Let say you go out into the world an see that A -> B -> C.
> You go and tell me that you observed this causal chain.
> To me it sounds plausible and and accurate since we are both similar in what aspects of reality is valued.
> I go and test your observation out and sure enough A -> B -> C.
> 
> Then I go speak to a LII and an ILI and have a couple of discussions about this topic.
> They say a bunch of stuff and after it I'm like, what if A -> C -> B also?
> 
> I play it out in my head and see how that would work out, I might then stumble across the idea of B-> A -> C too.
> Now it turns out after experimenting in the real world that while A -> C -> B is possible to do, B -> A -> C is impossible.
> But I don't discard it fully, I keep the POV stored inside.
> 
> Then later when you tell me about a new chain of events, D -> E -> F.
> I will take the POV blueprints of both D -> F -> E and E -> D -> F.
> And this time not only the first one is possible, but the second is possible too.
> 
> In other words I have generalized something that worked and something that didn't work.
> And made them both work for me in the future in a seemingly unrelated chain of events.
> Am I making sense here?


A few people have been typing me as ESI lately and reading this just cements how much more I relate to CD. It's very linear and step-by-step for me. Your thought process is so intriguing... yet so alien to me :O


----------



## Inveniet

Night Huntress said:


> A few people have been typing me as ESI lately and reading this just cements how much more I relate to CD. It's very linear and step-by-step for me. Your thought process is so intriguing... yet so alien to me :O


Yes it is yet another way of pinpointing your type.
Glad that you find it intriguing.
I'm ESI-Ni though and find that I approach problems a bit more Ni'ishly than fellow ESI-Se types.


----------



## karmachameleon

Is anyeone good at VI here?


----------



## Entropic

Kerik_S said:


> Still obsessed with Rose McGowan's _Broadly_ interview!
> 
> Is she a Gamma?





Captain Mclain said:


> ILI perhaps





Kerik_S said:


> I was thinking ILE at first. Maybe she's ILI...?


SLE imo. The interviewer is an EII I think, notice how she's very uncomfortable with Rose's Se.


----------



## Kerik_S

Entropic said:


> SLE imo. The interviewer is an EII I think, notice how she's very uncomfortable with Rose's Se.


Hmm.... I should look into SLE's ITR because I've never wanted to be friends with someone as much as I've wanted to be friends with this woman


----------



## Entropic

Kerik_S said:


> Hmm.... I should look into SLE's ITR because I've never wanted to be friends with someone as much as I've wanted to be friends with this woman


Well, as an IEI you're duals with SLEs, so.


----------



## karmachameleon

Yeah shes definitely Se  ILI? what

Edit: maybe LIE?


----------



## Kerik_S

Entropic said:


> Well, as an IEI you're duals with SLEs, so.


I haven't studied them at all. I'm certainly interested in reading that

_[reading]_

That's so cool! I'm a believer! xD


----------



## Graveyard

"I've been attempting to direct people forever, but now they have to".

"It's about assembling an army, because we can do this. And we're right".

Oh god she's awesome. And definitely an SLE.

She's the kind of person I need for world domination.


----------



## Kerik_S

Graveyard said:


> "I've been attempting to direct people forever, but now they have to".
> 
> "It's about assembling an army, because we can do this. And we're right".
> 
> Oh god she's awesome. And definitely an SLE.
> 
> She's the kind of person I need for world domination.


I love her, so much. _Charmed was my jam_, too.

She's not afraid.

Anyone wanna give her Enneatype?


----------



## Kintsugi

Night Huntress said:


> A few people have been typing me as ESI lately and reading this just cements how much more I relate to CD. It's very linear and step-by-step for me. Your thought process is so intriguing... yet so alien to me :O


People probably type you as ESI based off behavioural, surface-level observations. I say that because I've done that loads (and, honestly, I thought you "vibed" ESI for a while, too). Going by the cognitive styles stuff, and from how you write, I'd say you seem more CD. This is partly why I wanted to understand VS and HP better because I thought it might help me stop mistyping people, lol. The article and descriptions are a head-fuck though. >_>


----------



## Entropic

Kerik_S said:


> I love her, so much. _Charmed was my jam_, too.
> 
> She's not afraid.
> 
> Anyone wanna give her Enneatype?


I'd wager she's an 8.



Graveyard said:


> "I've been attempting to direct people forever, but now they have to".
> 
> "It's about assembling an army, because we can do this. And we're right".
> 
> Oh god she's awesome. And definitely an SLE.
> 
> She's the kind of person I need for world domination.


And yes, these were giveaways to Se base. And lol at all these IEIs fawning over her...



The Perfect Storm said:


> People probably type you as ESI based off behavioural, surface-level observations. I say that because I've done that loads (and, honestly, I thought you "vibed" ESI for a while, too). Going by the cognitive styles stuff, and from how you write, I'd say you seem more CD. This is partly why I wanted to understand VS and HP better because I thought it might help me stop mistyping people, lol. The article and descriptions are a head-fuck though. >_>


If people actually knew her in private they'd realize she's very, very demonstrative Fe. She often states things for the sake of emotional reactions and to "impress" people, kind of like "hi guys, I'm here, now look at me", and the way she often randomly writes in caps to emphasize something is very funny (or I think it is, because it's well, random, and often serves no real purpose than to emphasize her feelings). 

She's also very inconsistent in her expressions. One moment she can be like, I HATE THIS, and the other moment she's like I LOVE THIS. It's fun to point out how she's inconsistent in her expressions or to deny her emotional reactions when she's trying to elicit it. She can for example demand me to laugh or something because she thinks something was funny and people should laugh since it's funny, which I promptly won't do and it pisses her off. Compared to an ExE, she doesn't expect me to actually laugh though, nor do I think an ExE would actually demand you to laugh but would just kind of expect you to laugh because they did and it goes really awkward really fast because you don't do what they expect.

I have a funny chat log about that with an EIE that contacted me over Skype. I don't think I've felt that awkward talking to someone else in a very long time.


----------



## Kintsugi

Entropic said:


> If people actually knew her in private they'd realize she's very, very demonstrative Fe. She often states things for the sake of emotional reactions and to "impress" people, kind of like "hi guys, I'm here, now look at me", and the way she often randomly writes in caps to emphasize something is very funny (or I think it is, because it's well, random, and often serves no real purpose than to emphasize her feelings).
> 
> She's also very inconsistent in her expressions. One moment she can be like, I HATE THIS, and the other moment she's like I LOVE THIS. It's fun to point out how she's inconsistent in her expressions or to deny her emotional reactions when she's trying to elicit it. She can for example demand me to laugh or something because she thinks something was funny and people should laugh since it's funny, which I promptly won't do and it pisses her off. Compared to an ExE, she doesn't expect me to actually laugh though, nor do I think an ExE would actually demand you to laugh but would just kind of expect you to laugh because they did and it goes really awkward really fast because you don't do what they expect.
> 
> I have a funny chat log about that with an EIE that contacted me over Skype. I don't think I've felt that awkward talking to someone else in a very long time.


I'm terrible at typing people (no shit, lol), but I'm finding that trying to understand the cognitive styles theory is helping immensely. Like, if I hadn't spent a whole fucking day trying to understand that Gulenko article (which I STILL don't fully get) I would have probably still tried to type @Night Huntress as ESI. Truth is, HP, is clearly NOT her style (her thought process is too linear straightforward to be so, CD is a much better fit).

I went through a stage where I wondered if I were ESI recently and looking at CD vs HP really helped me figure it out. When people are struggling between two similar types perhaps its a good idea to look at the cognitive styles.


----------



## Entropic

The Perfect Storm said:


> I'm terrible at typing people (no shit, lol), but I'm finding that trying to understand the cognitive styles theory is helping immensely. Like, if I hadn't spent a whole fucking day trying to understand that Gulenko article (which I STILL don't fully get) I would have probably still tried to type @Night Huntress as ESI. Truth is, HP, is clearly NOT her style (her thought process is too linear straightforward to be so, CD is a much better fit).
> 
> I went through a stage where I wondered if I were ESI recently and looking at CD vs HP really helped me figure it out. When people are struggling between two similar types perhaps its a good idea to look at the cognitive styles.


In general, I think HP vs CD is that CD is typical formal logic, the kind of logic you learn in school i.e. if A, then B, then C. HP is more the kind of logic you see in reverse engineering, so if A > B > C, then also C > B > A and even B > C > A and so on, like you saw @hornet type. I honestly found the way he expressed it quite mindboggling as I think I'm very deductive and in a sense, linear (though then not really), but my thinking style is more akin to what you see in flowcharts, so if A, then B or C, so if not B, then C and vice versa. 

Actually, one reason why I settled on ILI as my type was because I finally understood what DA cognition was and I realized it's the style that describes my thinking pattern the best.


----------



## Kintsugi

Entropic said:


> In general, I think HP vs CD is that CD is typical formal logic, the kind of logic you learn in school i.e. if A, then B, then C. HP is more the kind of logic you see in reverse engineering, so if A > B > C, then also C > B > A and even B > C > A and so on, like you saw @_hornet_ type. I honestly found the way he expressed it quite mindboggling as I think I'm very deductive and in a sense, linear (though then not really), but my thinking style is more akin to what you see in flowcharts, so if A, then B or C, so if not B, then C and vice versa.
> 
> Actually, one reason why I settled on ILI as my type was because I finally understood what DA cognition was and I realized it's the style that describes my thinking pattern the best.


I also found @hornet's thought process mind-boggling, but also fascinating at the same time (I expressed this in another thread. xD)

I also pointed out that I actually find EIIs easier to follow (in terms of their line-of-thought) in comparison to ESIs. The difference comes down to the conclusion (I generally relate more to ESI than EII). When I think about it, the same goes for ILEs, and LSIs (but there is always this "disconnect"). I think sharing cognitive styles gives you this false sense of security that makes it easier at first, but once you get "too close", things quickly all apart.

I need to study this cognitive styles shit more. It's clearly important (and might explain why I keep screwing up).


----------



## Entropic

The Perfect Storm said:


> I also found @hornet's thought process mind-boggling, but also fascinating at the same time (I expressed this in another thread. xD)
> 
> I also pointed out that I actually find EIIs easier to follow (in terms of their line-of-thought) in comparison to ESIs. The difference comes down to the conclusion (I generally relate more to ESI than EII). When I think about it, the same goes for ILEs, and LSIs (but there is always this "disconnect"). I think sharing cognitive styles gives you this false sense of security that makes it easier at first, but once you get "too close", things quickly all apart.
> 
> I need to study this cognitive styles shit more. It's clearly important (and might explain why I keep screwing up).


I can usually understand CD logic fairly easily in others, but I also find that it struggles from the pitfalls as described by Gulenko when it turns circular. This is especially true in LSIs, as they rarely seem to want to investigate the correctness of their own premises so it becomes "I deduce that the the earth is round, I observe the earth is round, this support that the earth is round". What's frustrating with LSIs is that they rarely listen to me when I point this out. Because I don't value Ti and express my thinking in terms of Ti, they usually dismiss my conclusions as erroneous or missing the point, though I often think they miss the point, especially the bigger picture. 

I have little experience problem-solving with LSEs, but it tends to be fairly easy with EIEs though I often find that their insecurity in Ti makes it so I often end up doing all the Ti work for them which is a little frustrating because I assume that people should be able to deal with that stuff on their own after I point out the method for how to do it. 

Some people don't support the legitimacy of the cognitive styles but I find them meaningful when understanding different types. They can however sometimes be difficult to spot in others, as they usually show up the clearest in situations where you need to problem-solve.


----------



## Inveniet

Entropic said:


> In general, I think HP vs CD is that CD is typical formal logic, the kind of logic you learn in school i.e. if A, then B, then C. HP is more the kind of logic you see in reverse engineering, so if A > B > C, then also C > B > A and even B > C > A and so on, like you saw @_hornet_ type. I honestly found the way he expressed it quite mindboggling as I think I'm very deductive and in a sense, linear (though then not really), but my thinking style is more akin to what you see in flowcharts, so if A, then B or C, so if not B, then C and vice versa.
> 
> Actually, one reason why I settled on ILI as my type was because I finally understood what DA cognition was and I realized it's the style that describes my thinking pattern the best.


LOL
Mindboggling eh?
Well I've noticed a *lot of blank stares in my life* when I try to explain things to people, especially in person.
I've been giving the cognitive styles some thought lately due to answering the question on it in this thread.
I don't feel I get them fully myself, but *I seldom need to actually get stuff to deal with it.
*I have been thinking about what it actually mean that an ESI is HP though.
I will try to write my understanding of it out here in this post, mostly as a way to penetrate my own mind more deeply,
but also as a way to hopefully shed some light on it for others. SOOOO....

Basically if I have something that enters my field of interest like say this area of cognitive styles.
I will observe/skim trough it until something jumps out at me that make sense.
So reading about it the word *ESI* jumps out, OH ESI! I know that! *Good starting point let us focus there a bit!*
Then bla, bla, bla


> "they sporadically change the angle of examination or criterion of judgment."


*Hey that sounds familiar!
*Guess I just did it too, cause now ESI is completely forgotten and I now have the focus on the angles I use to attack things.
I see angles as my POVs basically.
I might employ the yin/yang angle, but then I tire of that and might attack it with the idea of fire/earth/water/air.
Or something else entirely, I have collected thousands of them over my life.
Moving on...


> _"ESI_ first draws near to a person, then moves away, seeming to probe the individual from all sides, cutting off those who could let them down."


Yeah I do this a lot, I don't even think about it. It is best if the distance/closeness just naturally happens.
But I will feel the need to force such a situation, if I'm not able to get it naturally.
I need to feel how it is when they are not there, only then can I truly see what it they being there means.
I often fantasize about going to a far off country for a period, and I have done that.
Just jumped on the plane to spain, hoping to figure out what baggage was mine, 
vs the stuff that was the people in my life baggage.
I did find part of the answer down there, but then I had to go back to test the angles I had discovered.
It was pretty messy, but I'm still glad I did it.
*Anyway...
*


> "The main advantages of Holographic cognition are as follows. First, it is multi-perspective. As already stated, because of this it attains a dimensionally holistic and complete depiction. Second, it values simplicity and clarity, avoids pretentiousness, and forgoes 'bells and whistles'."


Yeah, I have this model in my head now of this HP thing, still need a few more perspectives to make it more complete.
*SOOO...*


> "The obvious disadvantage of this cognitive style is that it appears too rough, lacking adequate consideration to details which become important when a process flows smoothly. Its information-dense constructs are often difficult to decompress and unpack; to outsiders, they may seem void of intermediate links for establishing coherency in their connections."


Is this a way to say that it seems that I'm rambling here LOL?
*I relate a lot to this though.*


> a microcosmic reflection of the whole world order,


I have this one POV for very complex issues that I need to download excessive amounts of data.
I just imagine a make believe universe that every theme within the universe is a galaxy.
All the issues within the universe can them be zoomed into solar system -> planet etc.
Just a way to make information overload seem managable.
I know that the info is there if I just care enough to visit the solar system/planet in question.


> Holographical cognition corresponds to a stable, self-possessed psyche resistant to conditioning.


Yeah reminds me of a conversation with a lady ILI who had worked for an adverticing company.
She claimed that we where mercilessly subject to adverts, I was like no way, I resist that stuff easily.
After all, I know what I want, any contamination from outside is easily detected.
I may comply with it, but it is either cause I want to, or it is under duress, in no way shape or form do I feel fooled by a comercial.
It is a comercial, it is there to manipulate you! That is the stated purpose of the damn thing!
Why would I submit to open manipulation?
If they like infiltrated my friends and had them subvert me that way then I guess it would be different.
When I see comercials, I get this need to openly mock their retarded attempts at making me want their products.
This of course annoys my EIE sister and SEI mom to no end.
*To conclude...*


> a superimposition of multiple images where each one can only be seen when looking at a certain angle.


I absolutely loved the POV of the house with 4 walls in 4 different colors and 4 observers when I first heard it.
I think I manically talked about it for days.
Probably because it mirrored how I did things, gave me a clue to my own inner world.
Then I realized that most people didn't care about this profound insight.
They seemed rather unimpressed by this discovery.
I somehow knew that I was very different from the people close to me that day.
Yes, I think I have a somewhat better model of this now.

So to sum it all up.
I take the information, bulid a hologram that I can spin around in my head of it.
The angles might be real or abstract, the important thing is that I see how the dots connect.
That I can just import this construct into conciousness whenever I encounter the subject again.
I can then like a sculptor, chissle away on the angles of the construct,
each revisit the end result gets closer and closer to the imagined thing.
Yet I never quite get there as there is always one more angle to add.


----------



## Kintsugi

Entropic said:


> Some people don't support the legitimacy of the cognitive styles but I find them meaningful when understanding different types. They can however sometimes be difficult to spot in others, as they usually show up the clearest in situations where you need to problem-solve.


Hmm, interesting. For some reason I feel like cracking this egg might help me? Idk, lol. Cognitive styles feels like a more concrete approach to it. Like, I can LOOK for SOMETHING. As opposed to this annoying, vague, interpretative BS that gts old quickly. xD



hornet said:


> LOL
> So to sum it all up.
> I take the information, bulid a hologram that I can spin around in my head of it.
> The angles might be real or abstract, the important thing is that I see how the dots connect.
> That I can just import this construct into conciousness whenever I encounter the subject again.
> I can then like a sculptor, chissle away on the angles of the construct,
> each revisit the end result gets closer and closer to the imagined thing.
> Yet I never quite get there as there is always one more angle to add.


Thanks for summing it up because you were about to lose me. Just saying. 

Honestly, despite my jest, I do find it fascinating. Tying to imagine it in my head right now but feel that I might be failing on all accounts, lol. I do appreciate you sharing though, so cheers. :cheers2:


----------



## Inveniet

The Perfect Storm said:


> Thanks for summing it up because you were about to lose me. Just saying.
> 
> Honestly, despite my jest, I do find it fascinating. Tying to imagine it in my head right now but feel that I might be failing on all accounts, lol. I do appreciate you sharing though, so cheers. :cheers2:


I've been working on a more coherent explaination instead of an actual replication of the chaotic process I use.

*Attempt at coherent explaination:*
The HP-cog view is basically comfortable with observing any facet of an object issue and then link it to something
that seem to match it from previous encounters with other issues.
If I see a round object I might think of a ball, then I will import all the properties of the ball onto the object being observed.
If the object is too unlike a ball, then at some point the analogy will break down.
This is of course no problem, the ball has played it's part and imparted some useful angles.
Then a new object/concept that remind me of the issue at hand will bubble to the surface and impart yet a new set of perpectives.
Every time the analogy breaks down, I just perspective jump onto something new.
I often feel great frustration if someone interupts my explaination with an analogy, by pointing out the "flaw".


> Hey you are full of bull, it isn't like a ball at all!


The longer I care to bring in useful and illuminating perspectives the easier it gets to understand the issue at hand.
It is just a matter of time for an HP type who have a rich template background.
Nothing is more sad though than an HP type with a poor template background.
I have met fellow ESI who at the surfcae seem dense, yet when you probe deeper, 
they just don't have that many templates to choose from and lack faith in their ability to link things up.
Regardless, once the resolution of the issue in question is clear enough, I can start to just say whatever I want about the topic.
It is like walking trough a park and just pointing out what you see while you walk.
There is a tree over there and a flower over there!
People go OHH, WOW how did you notice that? What can I say? 
I read the book in question?
I looked at the object in question?
I know because I have seen it basically.


----------



## Vermillion

The Perfect Storm said:


> People probably type you as ESI based off behavioural, surface-level observations. I say that because I've done that loads (and, honestly, I thought you "vibed" ESI for a while, too). Going by the cognitive styles stuff, and from how you write, I'd say you seem more CD. This is partly why I wanted to understand VS and HP better because I thought it might help me stop mistyping people, lol. The article and descriptions are a head-fuck though. >_>


Yep ^_^ I have also settled on 1 for my gut fix over 9, which I think adds a lot more to the vibe of someone preachy, haughty, and not as carefree as a typical SEE. My 1 fix needs some SERIOUS integration lol. Honestly! I've been thinking about that a lot these past few days and it makes a lot more sense that I always found people who talked about "freedom" and being "carefree" as silly. Now I just realize I was so unexposed to that shit that I didn't even KNOW I wanted it. Which is. Fucked up, to say the least. Double superego, double competency (nearly triple with my 5 wing). Jesus. I'm dry.

Past experiences with ESIs have always made me wonder how they seemed so "random" in coming up with one opinion/judgment after the other. Their reasoning seems to me like a lot of different premises and the various interrelations between those premises. Whereas mine is linear and very, VERY focused on one direction and one goal. If I'm investigating a specific premise, I go all the way down that road and evaluate it before drawing my thinking to an end.

Which is part of why I think CD and DA fit so well, because DA presents one part of the see-saw, and CD evaluates that part completely before stepping back. Then DA presents the opposite perspective, and CD fleshes that out. And so on and so forth.



hornet said:


> I've been working on a more coherent explaination instead of an actual replication of the chaotic process I use.
> 
> *Attempt at coherent explaination:*
> The HP-cog view is basically comfortable with observing any facet of an object issue and then link it to something
> that seem to match it from previous encounters with other issues.
> If I see a round object I might think of a ball, then I will import all the properties of the ball onto the object being observed.
> If the object is too unlike a ball, then at some point the analogy will break down.
> This is of course no problem, the ball has played it's part and imparted some useful angles.
> Then a new object/concept that remind me of the issue at hand will bubble to the surface and impart yet a new set of perpectives.
> Every time the analogy breaks down, I just perspective jump onto something new.
> I often feel great frustration if someone interupts my explaination with an analogy, by pointing out the "flaw".
> 
> The longer I care to bring in useful and illuminating perspectives the easier it gets to understand the issue at hand.
> It is just a matter of time for an HP type who have a rich template background.
> Nothing is more sad though than an HP type with a poor template background.
> I have met fellow ESI who at the surfcae seem dense, yet when you probe deeper,
> they just don't have that many templates to choose from and lack faith in their ability to link things up.
> Regardless, once the resolution of the issue in question is clear enough, I can start to just say whatever I want about the topic.
> It is like walking trough a park and just pointing out what you see while you walk.
> There is a tree over there and a flower over there!
> People go OHH, WOW how did you notice that? What can I say?
> I read the book in question?
> I looked at the object in question?
> I know because I have seen it basically.


Thank you for this, this is very illuminating!


----------



## Entropic

hornet said:


> LOL
> Mindboggling eh?
> Well I've noticed a *lot of blank stares in my life* when I try to explain things to people, especially in person.
> I've been giving the cognitive styles some thought lately due to answering the question on it in this thread.
> I don't feel I get them fully myself, but *I seldom need to actually get stuff to deal with it.
> *I have been thinking about what it actually mean that an ESI is HP though.
> I will try to write my understanding of it out here in this post, mostly as a way to penetrate my own mind more deeply,
> but also as a way to hopefully shed some light on it for others. SOOOO....
> 
> Basically if I have something that enters my field of interest like say this area of cognitive styles.
> I will observe/skim trough it until something jumps out at me that make sense.
> So reading about it the word *ESI* jumps out, OH ESI! I know that! *Good starting point let us focus there a bit!*
> Then bla, bla, bla
> 
> *Hey that sounds familiar!
> *Guess I just did it too, cause now ESI is completely forgotten and I now have the focus on the angles I use to attack things.
> I see angles as my POVs basically.
> I might employ the yin/yang angle, but then I tire of that and might attack it with the idea of fire/earth/water/air.
> Or something else entirely, I have collected thousands of them over my life.
> Moving on...
> 
> Yeah I do this a lot, I don't even think about it. It is best if the distance/closeness just naturally happens.
> But I will feel the need to force such a situation, if I'm not able to get it naturally.
> I need to feel how it is when they are not there, only then can I truly see what it they being there means.
> I often fantasize about going to a far off country for a period, and I have done that.
> Just jumped on the plane to spain, hoping to figure out what baggage was mine,
> vs the stuff that was the people in my life baggage.
> I did find part of the answer down there, but then I had to go back to test the angles I had discovered.
> It was pretty messy, but I'm still glad I did it.
> *Anyway...
> *
> Yeah, I have this model in my head now of this HP thing, still need a few more perspectives to make it more complete.
> *SOOO...*
> 
> Is this a way to say that it seems that I'm rambling here LOL?
> *I relate a lot to this though.*
> 
> I have this one POV for very complex issues that I need to download excessive amounts of data.
> I just imagine a make believe universe that every theme within the universe is a galaxy.
> All the issues within the universe can them be zoomed into solar system -> planet etc.
> Just a way to make information overload seem managable.
> I know that the info is there if I just care enough to visit the solar system/planet in question.
> 
> Yeah reminds me of a conversation with a lady ILI who had worked for an adverticing company.
> She claimed that we where mercilessly subject to adverts, I was like no way, I resist that stuff easily.
> After all, I know what I want, any contamination from outside is easily detected.
> I may comply with it, but it is either cause I want to, or it is under duress, in no way shape or form do I feel fooled by a comercial.
> It is a comercial, it is there to manipulate you! That is the stated purpose of the damn thing!
> Why would I submit to open manipulation?
> If they like infiltrated my friends and had them subvert me that way then I guess it would be different.
> When I see comercials, I get this need to openly mock their retarded attempts at making me want their products.
> This of course annoys my EIE sister and SEI mom to no end.
> *To conclude...*
> 
> I absolutely loved the POV of the house with 4 walls in 4 different colors and 4 observers when I first heard it.
> I think I manically talked about it for days.
> Probably because it mirrored how I did things, gave me a clue to my own inner world.
> Then I realized that most people didn't care about this profound insight.
> They seemed rather unimpressed by this discovery.
> I somehow knew that I was very different from the people close to me that day.
> Yes, I think I have a somewhat better model of this now.
> 
> So to sum it all up.
> I take the information, bulid a hologram that I can spin around in my head of it.
> The angles might be real or abstract, the important thing is that I see how the dots connect.
> That I can just import this construct into conciousness whenever I encounter the subject again.
> I can then like a sculptor, chissle away on the angles of the construct,
> each revisit the end result gets closer and closer to the imagined thing.
> Yet I never quite get there as there is always one more angle to add.


Wow, the underlined is very foreign to me. I don't think I even see myself as utilizing strategies or "angles". Sure, I can see things in terms of different angles, but I have absolutely no desire to shift perspectives in the way you describe. If I stick with a "yin/yang" way to explore a topic, I'll find ways to explore it as deeply as possible utilizing this particular perspective by seeing as many angles as possible of the same thing. It took a while for me to understand the whole on/off example Gulenko used for DA, bu I think that's accurate overall, because you see the same room regardless if it's lit or dark, but your perception of the room entirely changed. Yet these two perspectives are important in order to formulate a more holistic impression of the room in question, or it is incomplete. The room is not lit or dark, but it is simultaneously lit and dark and by understanding the shades that occur between lit and dark, we gain new and deeper understanding of a thing. I do think a lot in terms of dichotomies, but I find that delineating thinking into strict dichotomies that make for a difference e.g. man and woman are two different categories are are so because one is defined by what the other is not, very dissatisfactory. I find that the CD style in LSIs are very prone towards doing that though and it really drives me insane. They really cannot and do not want to deal with shades of grey between categories but they very often end up treating categories as immutable and refuse to acknowledge the mutability of them (go figure, it was Plato as an LSI, that came up with essentialism in Western philosophy). 

I don't quite find the same to be true in other CD types. I reckon SEEs may treat feelings or notions of morality as immutable in a sense though, but I never had issues with that or thought of it in that particular way, and ILEs I have too poor experience with to fully understand how they work except they are very linear in how they problem-solve theories or come up with theories in that one idea leads to another idea. I think the whole "Ne branching out from one central core" is mostly based on the ILE's Ne, not so much the IEE. I'm not sure how CD works like in EIIs.

Also, the thing about DA being the most susceptible to change is very true. I once changed my political orientation from one spectrum to another over the course of a couple of months for no real reason why, tbh, except it seemed like the better or smarter option. I used to be right wing but nowadays I strongly identify with left wing, more on the Marxist end of things. I'm extremely impressionist in a dumb way sometimes, as I often struggle with making claims to things as decidedly "me" (I know, ironic, given that most people probably don't have that impression of me) and I have often copied the styles or preferences of people around me, more so when I was younger, because I genuinely did not have any preferences of my own. I for example got into horseback riding because my SLE cousin was, not necessarily because I genuinely cared myself, for example, or claimed my favorite color was blue because my stepbrother claimed his favorite color was blue. It was only as I got older that I began to develop my own personal preferences over time and once I developed a preference, I held very strongly on to it. In retrospect I look back at these things and go like wat, why did I do that, though I still have this issue sometimes when it comes to stuff like say, choosing what to eat and I may just end up doing the same thing I know I like because I don't have any strong opinion on new experiences. It means I really have to think about whether I really like or dislike it, but at the end of the day it just feels so very abstract. It's like when I have to go choose what icecream to pick and it just comes a "but it's all just ice cream" and I leave the store without buying anything because I really don't know which one I should buy, unless I do it based purely as a matter of what's the cheapest (but then the quality suffers, meh). 

In retrospect, I think a big problem that I had with an ex of mine was precisely this irrationality of not having any strong preferences of my own, because what happened was that we'd suggest to go out and eat but I had no preference what to actually eat, which he found frustrating because neither did he, and he didn't like to make decisions like that either. The conversation would usually end up something like:

He: Hey, let's go out and eat.
Me: Sure, what do you want to eat?
He: Idk, what do you want to eat?
Me: Idk, you decide something.
He: No, I don't care, you decide something.

And so on and so forth lol. Idk what type he was but probably a beta or a delta. It's so long time ago I hardly remember. This would be a no brainer for a gamma SF, since they judge the world like that all the time and it's just easier to "tag along" until I do feel I have a preference. I also think it really helps me to acquire new experiences outside of what I really have as I again, find it difficult to decide what new experiences to pursue since it all turns into a big pool of "meh" in the end. Too many options and I just find it overwhelming too choose just one and ultimately it all becomes some kind of "sameness" in my mind and from there I just give up and stick with something I know I like because that's easier. At least I know I like THAT thing. 

Actually, this situation is reminiscent of what @Zamyatin wrote recently about SEE-ILI duality.

EDIT
How the hell does IEE-SLI duality work since I assume SLIs would struggle with the same issue of not knowing what their preferences are due to super-id Fi but IEEs are Si seeking so they usually don't know what sensory information is good or useful to them?


----------



## Entropic

The Perfect Storm said:


> Hmm, interesting. For some reason I feel like cracking this egg might help me? Idk, lol. Cognitive styles feels like a more concrete approach to it. Like, I can LOOK for SOMETHING. As opposed to this annoying, vague, interpretative BS that gts old quickly. xD


Well, the ways to spot someone's cognitive style unless you have a very explicit example to go off, would be to look at the person's Reinins i.e. positivist/negativist, process/result and dynamic/static. These are all very easy to observe, usually, though I may also argue that one reason why the SEE is CD is because they are strategic. 

Also, I just read this:



> *The other version is slow suggestion, primarily based on entrainment through rhythmic vocalization and/or sound, multiple repetitions of the same phrase with variation. Variations in this case are particularly significant, working akin to the chorus in a song. Gradually a trance state is reached—external relaxation with internal concentration. The greater the monotony, the sooner a deep trance is reached.* Hence why some people rapidly settle down and fall asleep under a monotone 'bubnezh' TV.


lol, I guess that explains why I like to listen to goa/psytrance when I want to sleep while traveling. It's extremely "soothing" in the way the music style is repetitive, like this:






Not sure I'd call it a "trance" though because it doesn't feel like it's _that _extreme though I guess I see where he's coming from. Actually nevermind, I guess there's a reason it's called "trance" as a genre. Meh, whatever.


----------



## Kintsugi

Night Huntress said:


> Yep ^_^ I have also settled on 1 for my gut fix over 9, which I think adds a lot more to the vibe of someone preachy, haughty, and not as carefree as a typical SEE. My 1 fix needs some SERIOUS integration lol. Honestly! I've been thinking about that a lot these past few days and it makes a lot more sense that I always found people who talked about "freedom" and being "carefree" as silly. Now I just realize I was so unexposed to that shit that I didn't even KNOW I wanted it. Which is. Fucked up, to say the least. Double superego, double competency (nearly triple with my 5 wing). Jesus. I'm dry.


This is interesting.

I relate _a lot _to both 1 and 6 (yet no one "sees" it, I just get typed as a fucking 7).

It annoys me. I feel like people completely miss the pain and trauma I put myself through...

Freedom is some idealised other-worldly thing that I like to fantasize about.

Btw, the reason why I typed you as ESI was because you seemed to be able to articulate things, that I perceived as manifesting on a deeper level, much...better/smoother(?), then I could have ever even attempted to do so.

You have a way with words and often times sound very poetic. It's very beautiful. May I even say, in a very selfish and narcissitic way, that it's wonderful seeing an "ESFuckingP" do so. ^_^

No, not licking your ass. Not even close.


----------



## Inveniet

Entropic said:


> Wow, the underlined is very foreign to me. I don't think I even see myself as utilizing strategies or "angles". Sure, I can see things in terms of different angles, but I have absolutely no desire to shift perspectives in the way you describe. If I stick with a "yin/yang" way to explore a topic, I'll find ways to explore it as deeply as possible utilizing this particular perspective by seeing as many angles as possible of the same thing.


I've always wondered how you ILI endured that. 
I was like how can they go on and on and just drill witht he same angle.
It is like the angles you use are indestructible, while the angle I use rapidly get worn out.
And that is using the same angles.
*Goes to actually try to understand DA.
Hmm...



> It took a while for me to understand the whole on/off example Gulenko used for DA, bu I think that's accurate overall, because you see the same room regardless if it's lit or dark, but your perception of the room entirely changed. Yet these two perspectives are important in order to formulate a more holistic impression of the room in question, or it is incomplete. The room is not lit or dark, but it is simultaneously lit and dark and by understanding the shades that occur between lit and dark, we gain new and deeper understanding of a thing. I do think a lot in terms of dichotomies, but I find that delineating thinking into strict dichotomies that make for a difference e.g. man and woman are two different categories are are so because one is defined by what the other is not, very dissatisfactory. I find that the CD style in LSIs are very prone towards doing that though and it really drives me insane. They really cannot and do not want to deal with shades of grey between categories but they very often end up treating categories as immutable and refuse to acknowledge the mutability of them (go figure, it was Plato as an LSI, that came up with essentialism in Western philosophy).


So basically DAs see the dichotomies clearly, yet they strive to bring forth the shades of gray instead.
Finding an unresolved set of opposites unbearable in a way.



> I don't quite find the same to be true in other CD types. I reckon SEEs may treat feelings or notions of morality as immutable in a sense though, but I never had issues with that or thought of it in that particular way, and ILEs I have too poor experience with to fully understand how they work except they are very linear in how they problem-solve theories or come up with theories in that one idea leads to another idea. I think the whole "Ne branching out from one central core" is mostly based on the ILE's Ne, not so much the IEE. I'm not sure how CD works like in EIIs.


I havn't really gone deep into the rabbithole off CD either.
*Drags self by the neck over to the CD section...
Well they do constuct cause effect chains. And then they live by them.
Guess it is sort of like when an SEE flirted with me, then I figured it wouldn't work out.
So I told her that we should just be friends right now.
She couldn't handle it, she tried to initiate all her girl makes boy interested, cause effect chains...
To no avail of course as it didn't matter to me what she did.
I had made a decision and even if the stuff she id was appealing and tempting, 
I knew that from my POV on the relation between us, it was a no go.
I guess the no shades of gray come in where they see what is manifest worth on the surface.
They see what society values and then aligns their Fi creatively with that.
So the shades of gray isn't really there as they are following a cause effect chain.
While as an ESI my inner view of it is more important so to speak.
*If the angle is out of place on some value issue I will not do it, even if some causal chain seem to lead to the value.*
I'm not sure if this makes sense, the image is too fuzzy yet.



> Also, the thing about DA being the most susceptible to change is very true. I once changed my political orientation from one spectrum to another over the course of a couple of months for no real reason why, tbh, except it seemed like the better or smarter option. I used to be right wing but nowadays I strongly identify with left wing, more on the Marxist end of things. I'm extremely impressionist in a dumb way sometimes, as I often struggle with making claims to things as decidedly "me" (I know, ironic, given that most people probably don't have that impression of me) and I have often copied the styles or preferences of people around me, more so when I was younger, because I genuinely did not have any preferences of my own. I for example got into horseback riding because my SLE cousin was, not necessarily because I genuinely cared myself, for example, or claimed my favorite color was blue because my stepbrother claimed his favorite color was blue. It was only as I got older that I began to develop my own personal preferences over time and once I developed a preference, I held very strongly on to it. In retrospect I look back at these things and go like wat, why did I do that, though I still have this issue sometimes when it comes to stuff like say, choosing what to eat and I may just end up doing the same thing I know I like because I don't have any strong opinion on new experiences. It means I really have to think about whether I really like or dislike it, but at the end of the day it just feels so very abstract. It's like when I have to go choose what icecream to pick and it just comes a "but it's all just ice cream" and I leave the store without buying anything because I really don't know which one I should buy, unless I do it based purely as a matter of what's the cheapest (but then the quality suffers, meh).


I break it down to my needs, why did I want an icecream in the first place?
Why did I show up at the votebooth?
Then I choose whatever seems to be aligning with what my intention right now was.
If I was hot, then the biggest icecream to cool me down, if I just wanted something tasty, 
then I go for the flawor I know is tasty, if I was dragged into the icecream booth for no reason I might as well sample a new flavor.
btw if you don't have 3 valid choices or more you don't really have free choice in your inner/outer world.



> In retrospect, I think a big problem that I had with an ex of mine was precisely this irrationality of not having any strong preferences of my own, because what happened was that we'd suggest to go out and eat but I had no preference what to actually eat, which he found frustrating because neither did he, and he didn't like to make decisions like that either. The conversation would usually end up something like:
> 
> He: Hey, let's go out and eat.
> Me: Sure, what do you want to eat?
> He: Idk, what do you want to eat?
> Me: Idk, you decide something.
> He: No, I don't care, you decide something.


If I notice people being hard to decide I just throw whatever is my fav into the mix.
If you don't know I sure as hell know. Chinece, Indian, Middle-eastern food, I have a fav everywhere,
and if I don't I'm open to it, provided I have the $$$ to up for it LOL.



> And so on and so forth lol. Idk what type he was but probably a beta or a delta. It's so long time ago I hardly remember. This would be a no brainer for a gamma SF, since they judge the world like that all the time and it's just easier to "tag along" until I do feel I have a preference. I also think it really helps me to acquire new experiences outside of what I really have as I again, find it difficult to decide what new experiences to pursue since it all turns into a big pool of "meh" in the end. Too many options and I just find it overwhelming too choose just one and ultimately it all becomes some kind of "sameness" in my mind and from there I just give up and stick with something I know I like because that's easier. At least I know I like THAT thing.


I can be very picky at times too though...
Depends on my mood really, too much newness and I fall down into my Si shadow pit.
I only want THAT thing.



> EDIT
> How the hell does IEE-SLI duality work since I assume SLIs would struggle with the same issue of not knowing what their preferences are due to super-id Fi but IEEs are Si seeking so they usually don't know what sensory information is good or useful to them?


Well like any duality it is very hit and miss.
I've seen it degrade into a power struggle, but it was two very neurotic individuals that met.
Si/Fi meets Ne/Te, IEE changes rules, SLI wants a word in about how the rules was changed,
IEE already controls the environment and forces the SLI out, the SLI then objects about being treated unfairly.
Then the IEE feels bad, and invites SLI again, and the cycle repeated itself.
I guess if the SLI had Te more online and actually had a semblance of control over their life,
and the IEE actually had the Fi more online, they might have found eachother.
I guess though that the imprint that major struggle had on each of them, taught them both a valuable lesson.
I think that duality isn't always going to be this merger, often it is just a way to wake you up to your own
shortcomings before you are ejected again, sort of like a rocket being slingshot around a planet.
The visit is very correcting on your course and speed, but it is inevitable that the visit will be short.
You came in at the wrong angle and speed for a extended stay.
If they do stay it is like any other thing, you see the value in the other, 
cause circumstance or life experience show you that it is right.


----------



## Entropic

hornet said:


> I've always wondered how you ILI endured that.
> I was like how can they go on and on and just drill witht he same angle.
> It is like the angles you use are indestructible, while the angle I use rapidly get worn out.
> And that is using the same angles.
> *Goes to actually try to understand DA.
> Hmm...


Hm, well, I think we see angles differently in the first place. The way I envision my thinking style is akin to a kaleidoscope, so in order to get a full idea of the picture I need to keep spinning it around until I've examined all the angles. It's quite like an old projector where you need to change the entire picture in order to keep the story running, so to speak. 



> So basically DAs see the dichotomies clearly, yet they strive to bring forth the shades of gray instead.
> Finding an unresolved set of opposites unbearable in a way.


Yes, that's a good way of putting it. 



> I havn't really gone deep into the rabbithole off CD either.
> *Drags self by the neck over to the CD section...
> Well they do constuct cause effect chains. And then they live by them.
> Guess it is sort of like when an SEE flirted with me, then I figured it wouldn't work out.
> So I told her that we should just be friends right now.
> She couldn't handle it, she tried to initiate all her girl makes boy interested, cause effect chains...
> To no avail of course as it didn't matter to me what she did.
> I had made a decision and even if the stuff she id was appealing and tempting,
> I knew that from my POV on the relation between us, it was a no go.
> I guess the no shades of gray come in where they see what is manifest worth on the surface.
> They see what society values and then aligns their Fi creatively with that.
> So the shades of gray isn't really there as they are following a cause effect chain.
> While as an ESI my inner view of it is more important so to speak.
> *If the angle is out of place on some value issue I will not do it, even if some causal chain seem to lead to the value.*
> I'm not sure if this makes sense, the image is too fuzzy yet.


Hm, no, I suppose you are right that CD types are bad at seeing shades, it's not really their thing at all. They want to keep expanding on options towards a singular vision, and that in a sense, means that they want to reduce or remove ambiguity, not to create more of it. 



> I break it down to my needs, why did I want an icecream in the first place?
> Why did I show up at the votebooth?
> Then I choose whatever seems to be aligning with what my intention right now was.
> If I was hot, then the biggest icecream to cool me down, if I just wanted something tasty,
> then I go for the flawor I know is tasty, if I was dragged into the icecream booth for no reason I might as well sample a new flavor.
> btw if you don't have 3 valid choices or more you don't really have free choice in your inner/outer world.
> 
> 
> 
> If I notice people being hard to decide I just throw whatever is my fav into the mix.
> If you don't know I sure as hell know. Chinece, Indian, Middle-eastern food, I have a fav everywhere,
> and if I don't I'm open to it, provided I have the $$$ to up for it LOL.


Yeah, exactly, but how the fuck do you do that? How do you have a favorite for everything and even if you don't, how can you formulate it so easily? It's like I've been playing LoL for several years, but I still don't think I have a favorite favorite champion. There are some champions I like more than others, but a favorite? No idea. It's not like there's THAT champion above everyone else or something. 




> I can be very picky at times too though...
> Depends on my mood really, too much newness and I fall down into my Si shadow pit.
> I only want THAT thing.


Hm, I didn't associate that with Si but more Se? 



> Well like any duality it is very hit and miss.
> I've seen it degrade into a power struggle, but it was two very neurotic individuals that met.
> Si/Fi meets Ne/Te, IEE changes rules, SLI wants a word in about how the rules was changed,
> IEE already controls the environment and forces the SLI out, the SLI then objects about being treated unfairly.
> Then the IEE feels bad, and invites SLI again, and the cycle repeated itself.
> I guess if the SLI had Te more online and actually had a semblance of control over their life,
> and the IEE actually had the Fi more online, they might have found eachother.
> I guess though that the imprint that major struggle had on each of them, taught them both a valuable lesson.
> I think that duality isn't always going to be this merger, often it is just a way to wake you up to your own
> shortcomings before you are ejected again, sort of like a rocket being slingshot around a planet.
> The visit is very correcting on your course and speed, but it is inevitable that the visit will be short.
> You came in at the wrong angle and speed for a extended stay.
> If they do stay it is like any other thing, you see the value in the other,
> cause circumstance or life experience show you that it is right.


Sure, but how does the SLI deal with their desires?


----------



## Vermillion

The Perfect Storm said:


> This is interesting.
> 
> I relate _a lot _to both 1 and 6 (yet no one "sees" it, I just get typed as a fucking 7).
> 
> It annoys me. I feel like people completely miss the pain and trauma I put myself through...
> 
> Freedom is some idealised other-worldly thing that I like to fantasize about.


Of course, I understand real and complete freedom isn't achievable -- nor is it practical. Still, if only you knew how regimented and colorless my life is lol. I think I definitely need to spice it up a lot more, and my mind is going crazy with the possibilities. No idea where to begin or how to get there. But I'll figure that out along the way 

Personally such issues with relating to types are why I prefer not to type someone in the Enneagram without knowing them REALLY well. Even so, their experience > my theories about it, because the Enneagram deals with fears and motivations that are a really personal thing. People can have good insights into your personality but ultimately only you can figure yourself out.



> Btw, the reason why I typed you as ESI was because you seemed to be able to articulate things, that I perceived as manifesting on a deeper level, much...better/smoother(?), then I could have ever even attempted to do so.
> 
> You have a way with words and often times sound very poetic. It's very beautiful. May I even say, in a very selfish and narcissitic way, that it's wonderful seeing an "ESFuckingP" do so. ^_^
> 
> No, not licking your ass. Not even close.


Thank you, I'm flattered ^_^ At the risk of sounding narcissistic, articulation and impactful expression is one thing I actually think I'm quite good at. I tend to think very visually and I love metaphors because they make my visual impressions even stronger and richer. I'm better at that form of communication than the organic, spitfire and street-smart style. I'm much too uptight for that. lel


----------



## Inveniet

Entropic said:


> Hm, well, I think we see angles differently in the first place. The way I envision my thinking style is akin to a kaleidoscope, so in order to get a full idea of the picture I need to keep spinning it around until I've examined all the angles. It's quite like an old projector where you need to change the entire picture in order to keep the story running, so to speak.


You spin me round, round baby round round...LOL
I'm dizzy right now... 



> Hm, no, I suppose you are right that CD types are bad at seeing shades, it's not really their thing at all. They want to keep expanding on options towards a singular vision, and that in a sense, means that they want to reduce or remove ambiguity, not to create more of it.


SEE wants to get more of that experience, and then feel if it was worth it afterwards.
Te/Ni is not supportive of shades of gray when they doublecheck it there.

EII want to have their values manifest in a carebear utopia.
Si/Te is not supportive of shades of gray when they doublecheck it there.

ILE wants to sample more Ne so that they can move towards the implications with their Ti.
Fe/Si is not supportive of shades of gray when they doublecheck it there.

LSI want to keep structuring every sensation into after their rigid inner formulations.
Ni/Fe is not supportive of shades of gray when they doublecheck it there.

Dunno if these are accurat or not, but it is what my mind spit out.



> Yeah, exactly, but how the fuck do you do that? How do you have a favorite for everything and even if you don't, how can you formulate it so easily? It's like I've been playing LoL for several years, but I still don't think I have a favorite favorite champion. There are some champions I like more than others, but a favorite? No idea. It's not like there's THAT champion above everyone else or something.


LOL fav is *LULU *of course, Caithlyn secons, Ryze works okay as a third choice, giving me free will 
But seriously, As soon as I find something that actually works for me, I just adopt it as a fav.
Lulu was the first char that worked for me in LOL, so I just became better at playing her,
then I found Caith also worked and finally a LIE player told me to use Ryze and gave me a very good intro on him.
Not that I play LOL much anymore.
I think that for me it really comes down with just choosing something that is functional,
then once I have that I sort of justifies my choice to myself.
I my experience of my choice is subpar on the other hand I will hate that "forever".
Or until I realize it is not so bad after all, or if I feel silly for disliking an obviously superior thing for an misunderstanding.



> Hm, I didn't associate that with Si but more Se?


Well that is up for debate, I often go into this super unconcius Si mode when 9ishness kicks in.
Or someone has bothered my PoLR too much.
If I'm balanced then Se is running the show, neurotic patterns always bring forth the Si in me.



> Sure, but how does the SLI deal with their desires?


They really have very few desires, and they usually center around their Si habits.
I've been eating this bland stuff for ages, guess it is my favorite, since I can discern minute changes in texture/flavor.
The tert is there to entertain the dom not the other way around.
That is how it strikes me.
An IEE told me about his SLI ex once, 
he was always trying to convince the SLI that the world was more than just blank surfaces.
The SLI in it's little Si bubble hadn't really considered that there was more to desire then the familiar sensations.
Of course this every SLI will have an envelope of deviation, due to cultural factors etc.
But in general they just hang out in their routine and find great enjoyment in that.
Ordering their world trough Te, this is the drawer for X and this is the drawer for Y!
It is important that everything is in their right position in case it is needed.
But it should look tactful you know.
I guess Fi for them is sort of propping up that agenda I want and value order and familiarity.
Did I answer the question this time or was it about how the SLI takes care of the IEEs desires?
Cause I think the IEE can handle that fine themself.


----------



## Entropic

hornet said:


> You spin me round, round baby round round...LOL
> I'm dizzy right now...


How does that make you dizzy lol? 



> SEE wants to get more of that experience, and then feel if it was worth it afterwards.
> Te/Ni is not supportive of shades of gray when they doublecheck it there.
> 
> EII want to have their values manifest in a carebear utopia.
> Si/Te is not supportive of shades of gray when they doublecheck it there.
> 
> ILE wants to sample more Ne so that they can move towards the implications with their Ti.
> Fe/Si is not supportive of shades of gray when they doublecheck it there.
> 
> LSI want to keep structuring every sensation into after their rigid inner formulations.
> Ni/Fe is not supportive of shades of gray when they doublecheck it there.
> 
> Dunno if these are accurat or not, but it is what my mind spit out.


I guess it makes sense though I can't judge the accuracy of the claim. 



> LOL fav is *LULU *of course, Caithlyn secons, Ryze works okay as a third choice, giving me free will
> But seriously, As soon as I find something that actually works for me, I just adopt it as a fav.
> Lulu was the first char that worked for me in LOL, so I just became better at playing her,
> then I found Caith also worked and finally a LIE player told me to use Ryze and gave me a very good intro on him.
> Not that I play LOL much anymore.
> I think that for me it really comes down with just choosing something that is functional,
> then once I have that I sort of justifies my choice to myself.
> I my experience of my choice is subpar on the other hand I will hate that "forever".
> Or until I realize it is not so bad after all, or if I feel silly for disliking an obviously superior thing for an misunderstanding.


There are champions that I like to play because I play them better and I enjoy the playstyle but idk if I'd call them faves. I like to play mid laners usually like Diana or Ahri, but it takes a lot for me to consider something a fave and I am not sure if I feel strongly enough towards either of them to classify them as such tbh. Usually I tend to pick or play things more based on utility and whether I can perform them well (they click with my playstyle or not) than whether I truly like or dislike them. Idk how to explain it, but I guess my approach is more "detached" or something. 



> Well that is up for debate, I often go into this super unconcius Si mode when 9ishness kicks in.
> Or someone has bothered my PoLR too much.
> If I'm balanced then Se is running the show, neurotic patterns always bring forth the Si in me.


Hm, I see. What is that like? 



> They really have very few desires, and they usually center around their Si habits.
> I've been eating this bland stuff for ages, guess it is my favorite, since I can discern minute changes in texture/flavor.
> The tert is there to entertain the dom not the other way around.
> That is how it strikes me.
> An IEE told me about his SLI ex once,
> he was always trying to convince the SLI that the world was more than just blank surfaces.
> The SLI in it's little Si bubble hadn't really considered that there was more to desire then the familiar sensations.
> Of course this every SLI will have an envelope of deviation, due to cultural factors etc.
> But in general they just hang out in their routine and find great enjoyment in that.
> Ordering their world trough Te, this is the drawer for X and this is the drawer for Y!
> It is important that everything is in their right position in case it is needed.
> But it should look tactful you know.
> I guess Fi for them is sort of propping up that agenda I want and value order and familiarity.
> Did I answer the question this time or was it about how the SLI takes care of the IEEs desires?
> Cause I think the IEE can handle that fine themself.


I suppose that kind of makes sense though I can't quite understand how that would be like.


----------



## Inveniet

Entropic said:


> How does that make you dizzy lol?


Well mostly cause I need a certain stability of focus to manage to think clearly.
That is why Ne as my PoLR is so disruptive.
It throws everything for a spin, just the thought of all the angles just spinning around was sort of mindboggling.
Yet not in the same way that Ne is scary, as after all the concept is stable and I guess I can use it as a POV later.
Yet the initial idea was a bit weird for me.



> I guess it makes sense though I can't judge the accuracy of the claim.


Sure, I'm just getting used to pointing out the difference when things come out a bit fuzzy 
vs when I have it more down



> There are champions that I like to play because I play them better and I enjoy the playstyle but idk if I'd call them faves. I like to play mid laners usually like Diana or Ahri, but it takes a lot for me to consider something a fave and I am not sure if I feel strongly enough towards either of them to classify them as such tbh. Usually I tend to pick or play things more based on utility and whether I can perform them well (they click with my playstyle or not) than whether I truly like or dislike them. Idk how to explain it, but I guess my approach is more "detached" or something.


AHA!
Constructivsm is some of the answer here I guess.



> Have emotional 'anchors' (eg, books, films, places) which they use to support their internal emotional state.
> Can become 'emotionally hooked', and can have a strong reaction to a particular part or section regardless of their feelings towards the entirety.


With Lulu for example I really liked the feel for the character as well as becoming somewhat skilled in her use.
I guess the sounds of her and the animations "hooked" me in a way, as she is a very Fi-Se char.
Might have identified with her on some level.
I think those two are very central to the choices I make, identity relevance and emotional relevance.
If something strikes a chord in me on some level that relates to my past in a good or bad way,
I will just fall into it, cause I seek out those feelings to understand myself deeper.
Having always felt I've lost some of my free spirit to circumstance, ESI-Ni is after all neuroticism IMO.
I always revel in stories, films etc that highlights those sides of life.





> Hm, I see. What is that like?


It is like I just retreat inward, I don't really care about my environment anymore.
Stuff just have their same old shape, in that mode I can eat the same dinner for months on end without even caring.
Yet the familiarity of my environment is not something I really pay attention to.
And if someone where to point it out, I would snap into Se mode and demonstrate that I was free of the locked down state.
Even when it was obvious that my hands where in many respect "tied".
It sort of connects with my 9ish anger, the longer I stay in disconnect mode, the more frustrating is the lack of activity.
I can start to suddenly hit objects when my anger and frustration over being useless flows over.
Showing every sign of a major depression and a will that wishes for revenge on the world that created this state of being.
Going towards ESI-Se is the best for me, but it can be a long crawl back when you have been in that pit.




> I suppose that kind of makes sense though I can't quite understand how that would be like.


Me neither, maybe...probably like I feel when I'm neurotic, minus the frustration over the state.
Of course they have other avenues for extroversion so there is no felt lack of Se.
Right now I have made myself a daily todolist that have the item, take a walk.
In case I somehow get lost in neurotic thoughts, that item on the list forces me to go out and use Se.
Slowly but surely I'm moving myself out of a limited neurotic worldview.
I also have hung out a little bit with some SEE's and ESI-Se's, plus LIE's.
They are like an infusion of energy into my life.
I have realized lately that I was dominated by my SLI grandmother, LSE grandfather, ESE aunt and SEI mother.
All denying me my use of Se in some way.
Only refuge was my LSI father and EIE sister, but their Ti/Fe taint, left me feeling inadequate and ridiculed in other realms.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Entropic said:


> The way I envision my thinking style is akin to a kaleidoscope


Not really in this conversation, and was just scanning page briefly, but "kaleidoscope" caught my attention. "Kaleidoscope" is directly mentioned as a part of VS in the IEI section. The rest of the paragraph then goes into HP descriptions.


----------



## Inveniet

Jeremy8419 said:


> Not really in this conversation, and was just scanning page briefly, but "kaleidoscope" caught my attention. "Kaleidoscope" is directly mentioned as a part of VS in the IEI section. The rest of the paragraph then goes into HP descriptions.


Well having resolved the dilemma already, and seeing this comment I guess you are sort of forgiven.
I think the cognitive divide demostrated in this statement underlines that your advice earlier was in good faith.
Or at least to me seems just to be a misunderstanding exacerbated by my slight paranoia from just
having read about the "viles" of delta, yet not really had the time to digest the information or the feelings they evoked in me.
Hence me projecting it all on you.
Sorry about that, it might have been a little on the reactive side....


----------



## Jeremy8419

hornet said:


> Well having resolved the dilemma already, and seeing this comment I guess you are sort of forgiven.
> I think the cognitive divide demostrated in this statement underlines that your advice earlier was in good faith.
> Or at least to me seems just to be a misunderstanding exacerbated by my slight paranoia from just
> having read about the "viles" of delta, yet not really had the time to digest the information or the feelings they evoked in me.
> Hence me projecting it all on you.
> Sorry about that, it might have been a little on the reactive side....


I walk roads less traveled, not by force, but by choice, knowing not many other good Samaritans will happen to wander by.


----------



## Kintsugi

Entropic said:


> Came back from watching Deadpool. Sans almost anything including Jim Carrey, this is one of the most enneagram 7 movie I've seen. I wish it was a little deeper actually, a little less humor. I think the movie had been even better with some conceptual depth, a villain motivation and a bit more action/drama over the humor. Right now it's a lot of cutting corners and too much of the sweet. The humor thusly grows stale very quickly. I honestly think it'd be better off as a TV series, not that that would happen, but anyway.
> 
> Also, caramel popcorn tastes exactly the way I envisioned it - like shit.


I watched it last weekend with my SO. We got a few laughs from it but we both felt that the story line was very weak. I think the humour was the only thing the movie had going for it, tbh; it wasn't trying to take itself or the genre seriously (and even then, it wasn't _that _funny. They did rely on a lot of cheap laughs). It was a "meh" kinda movie.

I prefer stuff which has more depth and is generally "darker", (with good character development and back-stories). I wasn't expecting it from this movie so I wasn't really that disappointed. I just saw it as pretty "standard" mainstream Hollywood stuff (which isn't really my kinda thing anyway).


----------



## Graveyard

Well that's kinda the purpose of Deadpool. He's a parody of Deathstroke in all ways possible, and his sole role is that of a comedian. He even got a free plot pass to break the fourth wall in the comics and *literal* immortality, so you shouldn't watch Deadpool if you're up for a good plot with character development. His lover is Death herself (with bone titties included), for goodness' sake. 

I, however, loved the film. Dunno, it was exactly what I expected it to be.


----------



## soseductive

Probably never gonna watch Deadpool. Since like 2008 i am pretty racist towards any movies and shows that are not japanese and animated.


----------



## soseductive

Last year i've watched entire Bondiana and it wasn't very good (especially parts with Roger Moore), but between 2008 and 2015 i've seen only 3 hollywood movies.


----------



## Kintsugi

Graveyard said:


> Well that's kinda the purpose of Deadpool. He's a parody of Deathstroke in all ways possible, and his sole role is that of a comedian. He even got a free plot pass to break the fourth wall in the comics and *literal* immortality, so you shouldn't watch Deadpool if you're up for a good plot with character development. His lover is Death herself (with bone titties included), for goodness' sake.
> 
> I, however, loved the film. Dunno, it was exactly what I expected it to be.


This is what I have heard from people who are Deadpool fans. I knew very little about him before I planned on watching the film, but I did go in expecting basically exactly what you just said (based on what people had told me). It was also pretty clear from the trailers. 

It was a good laugh in parts but not really my sort of thing. Perhaps I would have enjoyed it more if I was more interested in the Marvel Universe thing, but I'm not.


----------



## soseductive

I actually find that it's very hard for something to be funny for me and that's why i am more into action or mystery stuff. In last couple of years only Saiki Kusuo no Psi-nan made me laugh very hard. And mean VERY HARD. I am dying every chapter.
Personally i prefer films like Perfect Blue. Where author gives you hints about what is going to happen, but you do not think about it too much, because it doesn't seems to be important. And when you see the end everything falls into places and you like "HOW I COULDN'T THINK ABOUT IT?!". It's just the best feeling ever


----------



## soseductive

I think i fell on my knees multiple times while reading chapter 10.


----------



## Entropic

crashbandicoot said:


> I think the guy was sooo 7 that i wondered if he is not a 7 actually, lol. What bout villain, i think he was 8w9.
> 
> Anyway, I liked the movie overall (especially the 2nd part). I woulda enjoy it much if I had any clue about films/ characters/ pop culture elements frequently "dissed" in the movie. I assume %90 of them just flied over my head, lol. Still, it made me laugh


sx/so 7w8, yeah, probably 8w7 second fix to make it worse. I wish it had been more 8, less 7. It was frustrating how I could relate to some more 8ish scenes, but the 7 was always on top. And yes, lots of pop culture references. 

Francis (lol...) had no story so impossible to type. Could be 8, could not be 8.



The Perfect Storm said:


> I watched it last weekend with my SO. We got a few laughs from it but we both felt that the story line was very weak. I think the humour was the only thing the movie had going for it, tbh; it wasn't trying to take itself or the genre seriously (and even then, it wasn't _that _funny. They did rely on a lot of cheap laughs). It was a "meh" kinda movie.
> 
> I prefer stuff which has more depth and is generally "darker", (with good character development and back-stories). I wasn't expecting it from this movie so I wasn't really that disappointed. I just saw it as pretty "standard" mainstream Hollywood stuff (which isn't really my kinda thing anyway).


Neither did I, but I at least wanted to know why everyone fought because it would create more suspense since you can at least somewhat relate to the bad guy or understand where he's coming from. I get the humor was the main core of it, but like you said, it was funny but grew increasingly less funny as jokes came off more and more forced. 

So I agree with you. I didn't have many expectations (I wanted to be entertained, it's an superhero movie after all), but yeah, _some_ depth had been nice and surprising, especially for a movie and a character that claims be without one.


----------



## Graveyard

The Perfect Storm said:


> This is what I have heard from people who are Deadpool fans. I knew very little about him before I planned on watching the film, but I did go in expecting basically exactly what you just said (based on what people had told me). It was also pretty clear from the trailers.
> 
> It was a good laugh in parts but not really my sort of thing. Perhaps I would have enjoyed it more if I was more interested in the Marvel Universe thing, but I'm not.


Yeah, the trailers were a dead giveaway. I was really excited because that's really the way Deadpool behaves, and it's so nice to see a pretty accurate portrayal of a character I really like! And his story was explained well enough. 

Ah, if only you were. You'd see the beauty of his character. But oh well, it's totes good. ;P


----------



## soseductive

Are you excited, guys? 



Graphics doesn't look that good, as well as Maxima (his costume is SO weird), but i still like it.


----------



## soseductive

I love all of you, even though you are not cool enough to know about/play KoF :*


----------



## Entropic

soseductive said:


> I love all of you, even though you are not cool enough to know about/play KoF :*


The graphics looked like crap, lol, especially for 4th gen.


----------



## soseductive

Entropic said:


> The graphics looked like crap, lol, especially for 4th gen.


You hurt my feelings, man. You will never understand a soul of an artist. :'(
Yeah, not very pretty. I wish they'd stick to sprites from KoF XIII, but oh well. Every 2D fighter uses 3D graphics now, so they've decided to jump of a cliff to be like everyone :/ At least stylistically, i think it still looks better SF5 or Guilty Gear Xrd.


----------



## Entropic

soseductive said:


> You hurt my feelings, man. You will never understand a soul of an artist. :'(
> Yeah, not very pretty. I wish they'd stick to sprites from KoF XIII, but oh well. Every 2D fighter uses 3D graphics now, so they've decided to jump of a cliff to be like everyone :/ At least stylistically, i think it still looks better SF5 or Guilty Gear Xrd.


Good, I take pride in my ability to be a destroyer of feels. 

And I reckon they could have had stylized it more to cover up the low quality. Seems pretty common for fighters nowadays.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

soseductive said:


> I love all of you, even though you are not cool enough to know about/play KoF :*


I know about it, but I'm more interested in Guilty Gear and BlazBlue. However, the story of BB is such a WTF in the CF arcade that I don't bother anymore trying to get what's going on. Only like the music at this point.


----------



## soseductive

Entropic said:


> Good, I take pride in my ability to be a destroyer of feels.
> 
> And I reckon they could have had stylized it more to cover up the low quality. Seems pretty common for fighters nowadays.


Maybe it's just a problem of the engine and they can't just do better. They are pretty poor company after all. Or maybe i'm just dumb, i don't know a lot about that kind of stuff. Is it even possible? It's just from my experience every game on the same engine looks pretty much the same.


Mordred Phantom said:


> I know about it, but I'm more interested in Guilty Gear and BlazBlue. However, the story of BB is such a WTF in the CF arcade that I don't bother anymore trying to get what's going on. Only like the music at this point.


In CS it was pretty bad too. It was one of the things, that forced me to re evaluate my opinion on every fighting game that i had. And after i did that, i've found out that i only like fighters from SNK and SEGA. They were the only ones that i really had fun with, while other ones were a chore to play in one way or another. What was a surprise too, is that i found that i like SF4 more than BB!


----------



## Dragheart Luard

soseductive said:


> In CS it was pretty bad too. It was one of the things, that forced me to re evaluate my opinion on every fighting game that i had. And after i did that, i've found out that i only like fighters from SNK and SEGA. They were the only ones that i really had fun with, while other ones were a chore to play in one way or another. What was a surprise too, is that i found that i like SF4 more than BB!


BB is quite technical and some characters are a pain to master. Same issue with GG though they have the free pass of making the weirdest shit. I only managed to beat CT with the cheap mode as learning how to do combos with the PSP controller was hellish. CS was more troll as some characters got nerfed badly (looking at you Jin and you drive being blocked during story mode, which didn't let me to beat Rachel). But yeah, CT had the loop stuff, CS was sort of weird and then CP went the WTF mode fully. Adding Celica and other novel plots made it too messy.


----------



## Jakuri

Mordred Phantom said:


> I know about it, but I'm more interested in Guilty Gear and BlazBlue. However, the story of BB is such a WTF in the CF arcade that I don't bother anymore trying to get what's going on. Only like the music at this point.


I agree, the BB story got out of proportion. I am not a fighting game person, but it was music, art/graphics, and story that led me to GG and BB. I just use the stylish mode to get by with story. Apparently the Ragna arc ends in CF, and once that part is done I am thinking of dropping BB. I still like the fact that ASW's fighting games are nothing like other games. Too bad there are too many different fighting styles for me to master the characters I love (like Rachel, who is damn difficult to master) -- not to mention I am not a big fan of games that require me to spend lots of time for technical mastery, apart from rhythm games (basically the only exception to my general preferences).


----------



## soseductive

Mordred Phantom said:


> BB is quite technical and some characters are a pain to master. Same issue with GG though they have the free pass of making the weirdest shit. I only managed to beat CT with the cheap mode as learning how to do combos with the PSP controller was hellish. CS was more troll as some characters got nerfed badly (looking at you Jin and you drive being blocked during story mode, which didn't let me to beat Rachel). But yeah, CT had the loop stuff, CS was sort of weird and then CP went the WTF mode fully. Adding Celica and other novel plots made it too messy.


I think it was one of the reasons why i enjoyed SF4 more. It was more fun to play multiple characters in SF4 than in BB. In BB it was really fun to play as Bang or Jin (more fun than pretty much any character in SF4), but when i tried to play as other characters it was really alien and i didn't want to spend time learning them. So, i ended up playing just as Bang and Jin :\


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Jakuri said:


> I agree, the BB story got out of proportion. I am not a fighting game person, but it was music, art/graphics, and story that led me to GG and BB. I just use the stylish mode to get by with story. Apparently the Ragna arc ends in CF, and once that part is done I am thinking of dropping BB. I still like the fact that ASW's fighting games are nothing like other games. Too bad there are too many different fighting styles for me to master the characters I love (like Rachel, who is damn difficult to master) -- not to mention I am not a big fan of games that require me to spend lots of time for technical mastery, apart from rhythm games (basically the only exception to my general preferences).


Yes, those are the same reasons why I check both games. I suck balls at fighting games, so I only get interested in the ones that have some interesting story and good music. I've heard the same, and seeing how bizarre BB is getting I think that I will just keep checking GG. Guilty Gear was made as a weird game, so it's understandable that it will make zero sense.

I don't have a PS3, so youtube saved me and let me to watch the story mode of CP. Being honest, I wished that Bullet and Azrael got more information instead of being thrown randomly. Only Kagura got a proper backstory, and Amane is also a mystery.


----------



## soseductive

I think worst thing about latest fighting games is that they are more oriented on Ne users. Authors add so much things to mess around with and it feels overwhelming for people who are not into that. First Samurai Shodown is a really simple game, but a lot more fun to play. When i play it, i feel excitement and invested in every second, every move i make. And it's pretty much right from the start! While long combos in current games really takes you from the action, especially if you are on a receiving end.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

soseductive said:


> I think worst thing about latest fighting games is that they are more oriented on Ne users. Authors add so much things to mess around with and it feels overwhelming for people who are not into that. First Samurai Shodown is a really simple game, but a lot more fun to play. When i play it, i feel excitement and invested in every second, every move i make. And it's pretty much right from the start! While long combos in current games really takes you from the action, especially if you are on a receiving end.


I wonder if this also explains why the stories seem like a pile of crap to me, they don't have a clear cut story and are so damn scattered that I can't make any sense of them. Seems like there's no underlying concept, but a bunch of shit that looks cool and nothing else. Basically this is what happened with BB and I shake my head.


----------



## Jakuri

soseductive said:


> I think worst thing about latest fighting games is that they are more oriented on Ne users. Authors add so much things to mess around with and it feels overwhelming for people who are not into that. First Samurai Shodown is a really simple game, but a lot more fun to play. When i play it, i feel excitement and invested in every second, every move i make. And it's pretty much right from the start! While long combos in current games really takes you from the action, especially if you are on a receiving end.





Mordred Phantom said:


> I wonder if this also explains why the stories seem like a pile of crap to me, they don't have a clear cut story and are so damn scattered that I can't make any sense of them. Seems like there's no underlying concept, but a bunch of shit that looks cool and nothing else. Basically this is what happened with BB and I shake my head.


There are other background stuff you need to know that is not restricted to the in-game story to understand what's going on. There are novels released in Japan (Japan only) explaining some characters' background stories (I don't know Japanese, so I don't claim to read these. Just taking other people's words for it). Even though there are helpful corners like the Help Me Litchi series to get you started, but it's just a start. There is also the _xBlaze_ series (prequel to the BB storyline). It's the game not doing the best job of helping users understand the story. You basically need to consume other media (some of which are not released outside Japan) to get it.

The Ragna arc was supposed to finish in CP but Mori expanded the storyline too much which is why they had to delay the conclusion of the Ragna arc to the next instalment CF. I am inclined to agree that this is a good example of _unchecked_ Ne. Guilty Gear had this issue but I don't think it was as bad as BB. It seems that I am Ne-Si valuing considering quadra test results, but this is too much. Yet I started following Ragna's story so I want to finish. I hope the story reaches some kind of conclusion in CF so that I can drop it. I will just watch highly-skilled players' playing in YouTube for the sake of enjoying flashy eye-candies, and buy soundtrack CD's if I feel like it but that will be it more or less.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Jakuri said:


> There are other background stuff you need to know that is not restricted to the in-game story to understand what's going on. There are novels released in Japan (Japan only) explaining some characters' background stories (I don't know Japanese, so I don't claim to read these. Just taking other people's words for it). Even though there are helpful corners like the Help Me Litchi series to get you started, but it's just a start. There is also the _xBlaze_ series (prequel to the BB storyline). It's the game not doing the best job of helping users understand the story. You basically need to consume other media (some of which are not released outside Japan) to get it.
> 
> The Ragna arc was supposed to finish in CP but Mori expanded the storyline too much which is why they had to delay the conclusion of the Ragna arc to the next instalment CF. I am inclined to agree that this is a good example of _unchecked_ Ne. Guilty Gear had this issue but I don't think it was as bad as BB. It seems that I am Ne-Si valuing considering quadra test results, but this is too much. Yet I started following Ragna's story so I want to finish. I hope the story reaches some kind of conclusion in CF so that I can drop it. I will just watch highly-skilled players' playing in YouTube for the sake of enjoying flashy eye-candies, and buy soundtrack CD's if I feel like it but that will be it more or less.


Yeah, that's my issue with BB and GG as I can't get the main concept without reading those stories. I'm a Ni-Se valuer so for me this drives me insane. In a sense I prefer stuff like Final Fantasy as most of the stories are self contained, and besides some games, most of them don't have sequels from what I know. I've read that FF is more Beta NF as a whole, so could explain why besides the dramatic stuff I have an easy time getting the gist of the story.


----------



## soseductive

Mordred Phantom said:


> Yeah, that's my issue with BB and GG as I can't get the main concept without reading those stories. I'm a Ni-Se valuer so for me this drives me insane. In a sense I prefer stuff like Final Fantasy as most of the stories are self contained, and besides some games, most of them don't have sequels from what I know. I've read that FF is more Beta NF as a whole, so could explain why besides the dramatic stuff I have an easy time getting the gist of the story.


It's actually why i prefer alternative Gundam universes over Universal Century. They are so much more manageable than UC. It's not like situation in UC is a complete charlie foxtrot, but they pile more and more stuff over there and some instalments feel so different from each other, that you can't really believe, that they are take place in the same universe.


Jakuri said:


> There are other background stuff you need to know that is not restricted to the in-game story to understand what's going on. There are novels released in Japan (Japan only) explaining some characters' background stories (I don't know Japanese, so I don't claim to read these. Just taking other people's words for it). Even though there are helpful corners like the Help Me Litchi series to get you started, but it's just a start. There is also the _xBlaze_ series (prequel to the BB storyline). It's the game not doing the best job of helping users understand the story. You basically need to consume other media (some of which are not released outside Japan) to get it.
> 
> The Ragna arc was supposed to finish in CP but Mori expanded the storyline too much which is why they had to delay the conclusion of the Ragna arc to the next instalment CF. I am inclined to agree that this is a good example of _unchecked_ Ne. Guilty Gear had this issue but I don't think it was as bad as BB. It seems that I am Ne-Si valuing considering quadra test results, but this is too much. Yet I started following Ragna's story so I want to finish. I hope the story reaches some kind of conclusion in CF so that I can drop it. I will just watch highly-skilled players' playing in YouTube for the sake of enjoying flashy eye-candies, and buy soundtrack CD's if I feel like it but that will be it more or less.


Maybe, Ne is just paired up with a different function and that's what bugs you?


----------



## Dragheart Luard

soseductive said:


> It's actually why i prefer alternative Gundam universes over Universal Century. They are so much more manageable than UC. It's not like situation in UC is a complete charlie foxtrot, but they pile more and more stuff over there and some instalments feel so different from each other, that you can't really believe, that they are take place in the same universe.


This is also why I prefer Digimon Tamers and Savers compared to Adventure, as both are self contained and also darker. Tamers was specially good at the creepy stuff, while Savers story was more cliche shonen but you could hate the main villain so much that it was epic to see him getting his ass kicked. Frontier and Xros Wars feel more child like, so they're lower in my list, and Adventure 02 is utter trash. The second part of it it's specially nonsensical and feels like a cheap fanfiction.

But yeah, for me self contained stories are better as the concept doesn't get distorted later, while for sequels people rarely bother to check if the next story is properly linked to the former. Then you get those awesome plot holes lol


----------



## Jakuri

soseductive said:


> Maybe, Ne is just paired up with a different function and that's what bugs you?


More like I am thinking Ne not properly supported by a(n introverted) rational function resulted in parts of the storyline not being finished properly while too many things were being added, hence this mess. Too much confusion, which bugs me, yes. I am guessing that ASW might have to expanded the story too much without realizing they went too far without resolving any, and that Mori didn't realize it till he was working on the CP storyline. Please finish stuff properly in CF console zzz

Actually, this got me thinking that unchecked Ne looks like the bottom left....which describes the messy BB situation pretty well XD


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Jakuri said:


> More like I am thinking Ne not properly supported by a(n introverted) rational function resulted in parts of the storyline not being finished properly while too many things were being added, hence this mess. Too much confusion, which bugs me, yes. I am guessing that ASW might have to expanded the story too much without realizing they went too far without resolving any, and that Mori didn't realize it till he was working on the CP storyline. Please finish stuff properly in CF console zzz
> 
> Actually, this got me thinking that unchecked Ne looks like the bottom left....which describes the messy BB situation pretty well XD


This makes me wonder about Mori's type. Only sure that he's some crazy Ne type and doesn't seem rational XD


----------



## Serpent

Reddit is the garbage bin of the internet. It's like an amalgamation of everything bad about the internet.


----------



## Vermillion

Jakuri said:


>


This is a brilliant picture lol. Just absolutely hilarious and admittedly, I do automatically kinda see Ne the way it says Ni users do >_< The first panel is a welcome eye-opener to how it actually feels for them.

Also, ULTIMATE PETAL OF PETALNESS, lmao!!!


----------



## soseductive

Mordred Phantom said:


> This is also why I prefer Digimon Tamers and Savers compared to Adventure, as both are self contained and also darker. Tamers was specially good at the creepy stuff, while Savers story was more cliche shonen but you could hate the main villain so much that it was epic to see him getting his ass kicked. Frontier and Xros Wars feel more child like, so they're lower in my list, and Adventure 02 is utter trash. The second part of it it's specially nonsensical and feels like a cheap fanfiction.
> 
> But yeah, for me self contained stories are better as the concept doesn't get distorted later, while for sequels people rarely bother to check if the next story is properly linked to the former. Then you get those awesome plot holes lol


You are awesome. You bring tears of joy to my eyes.

I understand you! For sequels people rarely bother to check if it even make sense to have a sequel after what happened at the end of the original. Gundam Wing and probaby Gundam Seed are good examples. From what i remember, Wing ended in a such an idealistic way, that sequel just ruined entire massage of it. That's why i think it's good that Iron-Blooded Orphans are less idealistic. It gives to the authors ability to easier fabricate a sequel without damaging a story.


Jakuri said:


> More like I am thinking Ne not properly supported by a(n introverted) rational function resulted in parts of the storyline not being finished properly while too many things were being added, hence this mess. Too much confusion, which bugs me, yes. I am guessing that ASW might have to expanded the story too much without realizing they went too far without resolving any, and that Mori didn't realize it till he was working on the CP storyline. Please finish stuff properly in CF console zzz
> 
> Actually, this got me thinking that unchecked Ne looks like the bottom left....which describes the messy BB situation pretty well XD


This is amazing.


Mordred Phantom said:


> This makes me wonder about Mori's type. Only sure that he's some crazy Ne type and doesn't seem rational XD


If as you said he is trying to make his games look cool, then he probably have role Se. So, either ILE or IEE.


----------



## soseductive

Is anyone read Black Clover? I just feel like author of it is ILE. I really enjoyed his first work (Hungry Joker) and i tried to be nice to this one, but Black Clover is just awful. I'm tired of him using his Ti to make situations look dire when they're not. I am not blind and i can see if situation is dangerous or when enemy is powerful! You don't need to explain that to me! Especially, if i see that's not true. If someone is powerful, then you should show it to us and not talk about it. In one chapter character appears on "the battlefield" and after couple of pages, he's like "i'm so tired! we are doomed" and i think he wasn't even hit once! What a b. Sorry, i just had to let it out. I could rant about battle system, but it's a story for another day.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

soseductive said:


> You are awesome. You bring tears of joy to my eyes.
> 
> I understand you! For sequels people rarely bother to check if it even make sense to have a sequel after what happened at the end of the original. Gundam Wing and probaby Gundam Seed are good examples. From what i remember, Wing ended in a such an idealistic way, that sequel just ruined entire massage of it. That's why i think it's good that Iron-Blooded Orphans are less idealistic. It gives to the authors ability to easier fabricate a sequel without damaging a story.
> 
> If as you said he is trying to make his games look cool, then he probably have role Se. So, either ILE or IEE.


Yeah, so for this reason I wonder how Adventure Tri will work. There are two stories before it and it seems like they're already recycling the Digimon Kaiser. But yeah, if a message gets ruined then the sequel should be a spinoff instead.

Hm, I've read that Mori doesn't write the story in a linear way, writing it from the middle and adding shit that looks cool. Also, Noel is his waifu and I guess that she's a SEI or at least Alpha SF from what I've noticed. Ragna vibes to me like an XLE, thinking SLE as he's quite concrete and he has issues with Rachel's information (dunno her type though). Terumi seems like an ILE and he grates me badly with his 4chan troll stunts and doing shit for the evulz. He's basically a copy of the Joker.

The Imperator doesn't scare me at all, as she's a godess of death. Something like Code Geass' Emperor would be more menacing to be honest.


----------



## soseductive

Mordred Phantom said:


> Yeah, so for this reason I wonder how Adventure Tri will work. There are two stories before it and it seems like they're already recycling the Digimon Kaiser. But yeah, if a message gets ruined then the sequel should be a spinoff instead.
> 
> Hm, I've read that Mori doesn't write the story in a linear way, writing it from the middle and adding shit that looks cool. Also, Noel is his waifu and I guess that she's a SEI or at least Alpha SF from what I've noticed. Ragna vibes to me like an XLE, thinking SLE as he's quite concrete and he has issues with Rachel's information (dunno her type though). Terumi seems like an ILE and he grates me badly with his 4chan troll stunts and doing shit for the evulz. He's basically a copy of the Joker.
> 
> The Imperator doesn't scare me at all, as she's a godess of death. Something like Code Geass' Emperor would be more menacing to be honest.


To me, he's more of Gin Ichimaru clone, lol He looks so similar, Kubo probably could sue them. 

Actually, i've played it long time ago and i didn't noticed it first time around, but story itself reminds me of Naruto. This demon or whatever it was is like a nine-tailed fox, straight up!

It's pretty funny, but i've noticed that people are usually hate their mirrors and quasi-identicals more then conflictors. I personally have pretty good first impression of ILE  

I'm not really understand how you can write from the middle. When i write something, i usually start from the end of the arc and think how i could expand the story if i need it. Maybe, he's doing something like that?

When story is all over the place and doesn't really have a proper build up, then it's hard to feel anything.

I don't really know what to say about CG and The Emperor. I just recently re-watched it and it wasn't very good. I still enjoyed it, but for a completely wrong reason. I think my main problem was that it was structured pretty poorly and some of it was stolen from Death Note and DN did it better, maybe. (i need to re-watch it to give a clear answer) It's like we didn't had enough time to spend on some more important moments and jumped around between them too fast, while sol moments didn't had that at all! It's kind of reminds me of battles in Magi. When we doesn't have a battle, it's pretty readable, but when battle starts it turns into a mess and i need to re-read page multiple times to even understand what is going on. Do you think it is a weak Se?


----------



## Dragheart Luard

soseductive said:


> To me, he's more of Gin Ichimaru clone, lol He looks so similar, Kubo probably could sue them. Actually, i've played it long time ago and i didn't noticed it first time around, but story itself reminds me of Naruto. This demon or whatever it was is like a nine-tailed fox, straight up! It's pretty funny, but i've noticed that people are usually hate their mirrors and quasi-identicals more then conflictors. I personally have pretty good first impression of ILE  I'm not really understand how you can write from the middle. When i write something, i usually start from the end of the arc and think how i could expand the story if i need it. Maybe, he's doing something like that?
> 
> When story is all over the place and doesn't really have a proper build up, then it's hard to feel anything.
> 
> I don't really know what to say about CG and The Emperor. I just recently re-watched it and it wasn't very good. I still enjoyed it, but for a completely wrong reason. I think my main problem was that it was structured pretty poorly and some of it was stolen from Death Note and DN did it better, maybe. (i need to re-watch it to give a clear answer) It's like we didn't had enough time to spend on some more important moments and jumped around between them too fast, while sol moments didn't had that at all! It's kind of reminds me of battles in Magi. When we doesn't have a battle, it's pretty readable, but when battle starts it turns into a mess and i need to re-read page multiple times to even understand what is going on. Do you think it is a weak Se?


True, Hazama is practically a green haired Gin. I don't know his personality as I haven't read Bleach, so dunno if Mori also 'copied' that for making Hazama. Now about BB being Naruto like, that could also explain why the story makes no sense anymore to me. It's maybe too much NeTi for my taste and that makes me shake my head, specially as I've noticed the trend of painting TeFi characters as assholes or outright unable to think by themselves (Jin and Tsubaki are the most clear examples for me, and Kokonoe is almost evil there lol), and if Kagura is LIE, then showing him as some kind of drunk flirt doesn't help at all for proving that, same for Hibiki who may be LSE or at least some ST. I'm not totally sure about Azrael, but some SXE is likely for him. The lack of info doesn't help.

It can be as conflictors look like your dual at first, but when you notice the real self of them you want to run away XD

About writing, I try to first consider the start and end, and then see how to link them so the story isn't fuck logic.

I agree, GC was fine at R1, but R2 was quite freakish at some points. I also noticed that the slice of life stuff appeared too much, leaving many doubts about the rebellion as a whole. I haven't read Magi, but yeah bad battles can be shit Se. I struggle writing them as I'm like, does this make sense in reality or looks like I smoked bad quality crack? I can imagine the strategies without trouble, but writing a fist fight is like, well this seems quite WTF.


----------



## soseductive

Mordred Phantom said:


> True, Hazama is practically a green haired Gin. I don't know his personality as I haven't read Bleach, so dunno if Mori also 'copied' that for making Hazama. Now about BB being Naruto like, that could also explain why the story makes no sense anymore to me. It's maybe too much NeTi for my taste and that makes me shake my head, specially as I've noticed the trend of painting TeFi characters as assholes or outright unable to think by themselves (Jin and Tsubaki are the most clear examples for me, and Kokonoe is almost evil there lol), and if Kagura is LIE, then showing him as some kind of drunk flirt doesn't help at all for proving that, same for Hibiki who may be LSE or at least some ST. I'm not totally sure about Azrael, but some SXE is likely for him. The lack of info doesn't help.
> 
> It can be as conflictors look like your dual at first, but when you notice the real self of them you want to run away XD
> 
> About writing, I try to first consider the start and end, and then see how to link them so the story isn't fuck logic.
> 
> I agree, GC was fine at R1, but R2 was quite freakish at some points. I also noticed that the slice of life stuff appeared too much, leaving many doubts about the rebellion as a whole. I haven't read Magi, but yeah bad battles can be shit Se. I struggle writing them as I'm like, does this make sense in reality or looks like I smoked bad quality crack? I can imagine the strategies without trouble, but writing a fist fight is like, well this seems quite WTF.


They are kind of similar for the most part, but Gin is more... chill? I actually think that Kubo is an ESI. Well, at least it would make the most sense. Biggest question is his Te. But i am pretty sure that he is Se user, because he can connect panels and make moves flow better than almost anyone i know. If i am right and he is an ESI, then i am pretty sure Naoshi Komi is an ESI too. Well, they see us as an assholes, because we don't value their favorite Fe, Ne, Si and Ti. So, it's not very surprising  

Not really. It's more like i see their functions as a good thing at first, but after a while i feel like they doesn't pay enough attention to things that actually matters.

I usually start from the end, because plot twist is a thing that comes first in the most cases. I'm like all about my plot twists. Then i find good place for a start and connect them together.

Yeah, they could skip them and spend that time to make important scenes more smooth. I just wonder why it happens only with fights (Magi) and important/intense sense (Code Geass)? Are those scenes requires more Se, then usual? Or author use something else to write sol? 
* *




Also, it's just me or Lelouch could use geass on everyone and became an Emperor without too much trouble?


 I actually quite the opposite, i can easily imagine a fist fight and how moves connects to each other, but it's hard to come up with a decent strategy to defeat the opponent. :/ I think it's important to understand laws of your universe and as long as they say it make sense, it make sense. Also, really important to make understndable connections between pannels. So, there wouldn't be any questions about what happend between this and this panel.


----------



## soseductive

I feel like when i'm starting the battle, i don't know how exactly it's gonna end. I just use abilities of people who are participating in this fight up until the point when i feel that it's good time to end this and because of that, ending feels kind of sudden and abrupt to me.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

soseductive said:


> They are kind of similar for the most part, but Gin is more... chill? I actually think that Kubo is an ESI. Well, at least it would make the most sense. Biggest question is his Te. But i am pretty sure that he is Se user, because he can connect panels and make moves flow better than almost anyone i know. If i am right and he is an ESI, then i am pretty sure Naoshi Komi is an ESI too. Well, they see us as an assholes, because we don't value their favorite Fe, Ne, Si and Ti. So, it's not very surprising
> 
> Not really. It's more like i see their functions as a good thing at first, but after a while i feel like they doesn't pay enough attention to things that actually matters.
> 
> I usually start from the end, because plot twist is a thing that comes first in the most cases. I'm like all about my plot twists. Then i find good place for a start and connect them together.
> 
> Yeah, they could skip them and spend that time to make important scenes more smooth. I just wonder why it happens only with fights (Magi) and important/intense sense (Code Geass)? Are those scenes requires more Se, then usual? Or author use something else to write sol?
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, it's just me or Lelouch could use geass on everyone and became an Emperor without too much trouble?
> 
> 
> I actually quite the opposite, i can easily imagine a fist fight and how moves connects to each other, but it's hard to come up with a decent strategy to defeat the opponent. :/ I think it's important to understand laws of your universe and as long as they say it make sense, it make sense. Also, really important to make understndable connections between pannels. So, there wouldn't be any questions about what happend between this and this panel.


Yeah I've read that other people type Kubo as ESI, and they've commented about the amount of Fi that appears in Bleach. So your typing should be right XD

Hahaha that's true, alphas gonna hate gammas. I always piss off my ESE aunt and my SEI gramps thinks that I'm too harsh. 

I get you, I feel the same with ESE. They have the wrong focus compared to SEE.

Dunno if lack of Se, but yeah the fight scenes from CG were quite shit. It didn't feel like a legit war to be honest. I agree, Lelouch used really late his Geass for trolling hard.

Hahaha, seems like we have the opposite problems writing stuff. I focus more on large scale stuff, but fights are a disaster for me XD


----------



## soseductive

Mordred Phantom said:


> Yeah I've read that other people type Kubo as ESI, and they've commented about the amount of Fi that appears in Bleach. So your typing should be right XD
> 
> Hahaha that's true, alphas gonna hate gammas. I always piss off my ESE aunt and my SEI gramps thinks that I'm too harsh.
> 
> I get you, I feel the same with ESE. They have the wrong focus compared to SEE.
> 
> Dunno if lack of Se, but yeah the fight scenes from CG were quite shit. It didn't feel like a legit war to be honest. I agree, Lelouch used really late his Geass for trolling hard.
> 
> Hahaha, seems like we have the opposite problems writing stuff. I focus more on large scale stuff, but fights are a disaster for me XD


I'm not sure, because i don't really like manga by other Bleach fans. The only manga i've liked was Toshiaki Iwashiro's Psyren and there still were some things that i didn't like. Black Clover's author could be ILE and this is blows my mind.

They've made his Geass way too overpowered. Do you have any idea on author's TIM? I've seen a lot of betas liking this, while author stole some stuff from gammas like Napoleon. (well, at least he's suppouse to be gamma) I'm not a socionics expert. I am a feeler after all and our motto "feel, not think ¯\_(ツ)_/¯". So, you can imagine how good we are at typing 

I guess that's why we are in the same quadra. So we can team up and use each other's strength to create something better.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

soseductive said:


> They've made his Geass way too overpowered. Do you have any idea on author's TIM? I've seen a lot of betas liking this, while author stole some stuff from gammas like Napoleon. (well, at least he's suppouse to be gamma) I'm not a socionics expert. I am a feeler after all and our motto "feel, not think ¯\_(ツ)_/¯". So, you can imagine how good we are at typing
> 
> I guess that's why we are in the same quadra. So we can team up and use each other's strength to create something better.


I recall that @Entropic cringed a lot with the amount of Fe in the show, so that narrows it to Beta or Alpha, but I suspect Beta may be more likely for Code Geass. Not sure though if NF or ST would be more likely if it's indeed Beta (maybe the amount of Fe may point to NF, but I'm pulling this out of my ass XD)

That's right, I notice the same with my SEE friends. We cover each others weaknesses after all.


----------



## Entropic

Lelouch is an obvious ILI. The Fe isn't so overt in CG idk what you are talking about. It's more a gamma anime than beta but it has a share of Fe characters.


----------



## soseductive

Mordred Phantom said:


> I recall that @Entropic cringed a lot with the amount of Fe in the show, so that narrows it to Beta or Alpha, but I suspect Beta may be more likely for Code Geass. Not sure though if NF or ST would be more likely if it's indeed Beta (maybe the amount of Fe may point to NF, but I'm pulling this out of my ass XD)
> 
> That's right, I notice the same with my SEE friends. We cover each others weaknesses after all.


You won't say anything to him? Just say it. Do you think Lelouch is a perfect representation of you? Say it)

I wish i had friends :'(


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Entropic said:


> Lelouch is an obvious ILI. The Fe isn't so overt in CG idk what you are talking about. It's more a gamma anime than beta but it has a share of Fe characters.


I only know that you typed many of them and were like ugh so many Fe types.


----------



## soseductive

OMG! I love you! Sometimes, after your answer i want to marry you  




Is this activation? I feel exhausted after emotions i had.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

soseductive said:


> You won't say anything to him? Just say it. Do you think Lelouch is a perfect representation of you? Say it)
> 
> I wish i had friends :'(


I understand how he thinks and I agree that he's ILI. To be honest I was very sad when he died =/ he was one of the few characters that I understand well and doesn't make me go WTF you're doing.


----------



## soseductive

Mordred Phantom said:


> I understand how he thinks and I agree that he's ILI. To be honest I was very sad when he died =/ he was one of the few characters that I understand well and doesn't make me go WTF you're doing.


OOOOH, shit) Then, how you explain constant attempts to manipulate emotions of other people? And he was like all about motivational speeches) Too much of Fe for ILI, don't you think?


----------



## Dragheart Luard

soseductive said:


> OOOOH, shit) Then, how you explain constant attempts to manipulate emotions of other people? And he was like all about motivational speeches) Too much of Fe for ILI, don't you think?


I think that he deep down asspulled those speeches, as he only cared about his sister and kicking his father's ass. The manipulation may be actually his derpy Fi trying to detect what he could use for manipulating others and achieve his goals. Basically the whole Fe like stuff was just a mask and him trying to be something that he wasn't deep down. Otherwise his chance of doing what he wanted would be lost. The speeches were mostly done when he was Zero, and he wasn't being honest there.


----------



## soseductive

Mordred Phantom said:


> The manipulation may be actually his derpy Fi trying to detect what he could use for manipulating others and achieve his goals.


Fi doesn't really work like that. Fi is MY emotions, MY opinion. When i said "OMG! I love you! Sometimes, after your answer i want to marry you " it was Fi.



Mordred Phantom said:


> I think that he deep down asspulled those speeches, as he only cared about his sister and kicking his father's ass. Basically the whole Fe like stuff was just a mask and him trying to be something that he wasn't deep down. Otherwise his chance of doing what he wanted would be lost. The speeches were mostly done when he was Zero, and he wasn't being honest there.


Sounds more like role Fe to me.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

soseductive said:


> Fi doesn't really work like that. Fi is MY emotions, MY opinion. When i said "OMG! I love you! Sometimes, after your answer i want to marry you " it was Fi.
> 
> 
> Sounds more like role Fe to me.


If it's indeed role Fe, then LIE would work for him. The only sure thing is that he's a Gamma NT but yeah, either ILI or LIE are possible. I think that's not totally clear if he's focused on Ni or Te, like sometimes he seems more Ni like and other times his Te is more evident. Also subtype wise he would be ILI-Te or maybe LIE-Ni, which makes this less evident.


----------



## soseductive

Mordred Phantom said:


> If it's indeed role Fe, then LIE would work for him. The only sure thing is that he's a Gamma NT but yeah, either ILI or LIE are possible. I think that's not totally clear if he's focused on Ni or Te, like sometimes he seems more Ni like and other times his Te is more evident. Also subtype wise he would be ILI-Te or maybe LIE-Ni, which makes this less evident.


If it is role Fe, but there is two things that makes me think that it is not gamma anime. My personal opinion on some elements of the show and fact about screenwriter. What do you want to hear first? Also, i am not an expert in Te, so can you examine Te in the show?


----------



## Dragheart Luard

soseductive said:


> If it is role Fe, but there is two things that makes me think that it is not gamma anime. My personal opinion on some elements of the show and fact about screenwriter. What do you want to hear first? Also, i am not an expert in Te, so can you examine Te in the show?


I will try to check some scenes again as I watched it a while ago. Still I would like to read what you've noticed about the show and who wrote it.


----------



## soseductive

Mordred Phantom said:


> I will try to check some scenes again as I watched it a while ago. Still I would like to read what you've noticed about the show and who wrote it.


I didn't really noticed it at first (it was in my top 5 at the time), but after re-watching it, i must say that i don't like Lelouch and Suzaku. They were such an assholes and so unlikeable, that i would probably prefer to be friends with kitten rapist rather than with either of them. I can hardly say that i like any of the characters. 
* *




When Rolo died i even laughed. I must say it was like " FUCK YEAH!".


 I understand what he did and why, but it doesn't make him a nice guy.

The other one is that Okouchi Ichiro (guy who wrote the script) is Far-right and it is such a beta thing. Especially, in LSI-EIE couple and more specifically LSI itself. LSI are all about communism, nationalism, totalitarism and all that good stuff. I guess, that's why they love Universal Century timeline in Gundam  And you can clearly see it in his another work - Kakumeiki Valvrave.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

soseductive said:


> I didn't really noticed it at first (it was in my top 5 at the time), but after re-watching it, i must say that i don't like Lelouch and Suzaku. They were such an assholes and so unlikeable, that i would probably prefer to be friends with kitten rapist rather than with either of them. I can hardly say that i like any of the characters.
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Rolo died i even laughed. I must say it was like " FUCK YEAH!".
> 
> 
> I understand what he did and why, but it doesn't make him a nice guy.
> 
> The other one is that Okouchi Ichiro (guy who wrote the script) is Far-right and it is such a beta thing. Especially, in LSI-EIE couple and more specifically LSI itself. LSI are all about communism, nationalism, totalitarism and all that good stuff. I guess, that's why they love Universal Century timeline in Gundam  And you can clearly see it in his another work - Kakumeiki Valvrave.


I hated Suzaku from the start, as I found him an idiot and that he didn't know what the hell he was doing. I can get Lelouch, but it's true that some of his actions were way too fucked up. The other characters annoyed me, specially Euphy >_> Schnitzel was also a douchebag (I know that's not his name but I wanted to troll a bit).

I didn't know that bit about the writer, so with that the anime would naturally cater more to betas than gammas. I haven't checked the other animes, but yeah that could explain why there was that kind of focus in CG.


----------



## soseductive

Mordred Phantom said:


> I hated Suzaku from the start, as I found him an idiot and that he didn't know what the hell he was doing. I can get Lelouch, but it's true that some of his actions were way too fucked up. The other characters annoyed me, specially Euphy >_> Schnitzel was also a douchebag (I know that's not his name but I wanted to troll a bit).
> 
> I didn't know that bit about the writer, so with that the anime would naturally cater more to betas than gammas. I haven't checked the other animes, but yeah that could explain why there was that kind of focus in CG.


You are second person who hate Euphy that i ever saw  And it makes me ask you to watch Bleach, Gundam 00 and Gundam IBO. Just one episode of each would be enough. My prediction: 
* *




You'll like first two, but won't like the last one.




It's actually pretty funny, but i never meet LSI who are not in some kind of totalitarianism


----------



## soseductive

I think, i got too cocky. But i am still interested in your opinion.


----------



## Entropic

Suzaku was an idiot in a typical type 1 way and Euphy was just a stereotype useless alpha SF. I think few people would find Euphy interesting or like her as a character.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

soseductive said:


> You are second person who hate Euphy that i ever saw  And it makes me ask you to watch Bleach, Gundam 00 and Gundam IBO. Just one episode of each would be enough. My prediction:
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll like first two, but won't like the last one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually pretty funny, but i never meet LSI who are not in some kind of totalitarianism


I will check the episodes later, but I know a bit about Bleach. I will tell you if you're right after checking them. Also Euphy makes me cringe a lot, it's like her existence repels me LOL


----------



## soseductive

Entropic said:


> Suzaku was an idiot in a typical type 1 way and Euphy was just a stereotype useless alpha SF. I think few people would find Euphy interesting or like her as a character.





Mordred Phantom said:


> I will check the episodes later, but I know a bit about Bleach. I will tell you if you're right after checking them. Also Euphy makes me cringe a lot, it's like her existence repels me LOL


I actually find Euphy pretty tolerable. I think she was kind of kind. No pun intended. It's probably, because she didn't do anything particularly bad and i just can't hate person who aren't doing bad things.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

soseductive said:


> I actually find Euphy pretty tolerable. I think she was kind of kind. No pun intended. It's probably, because she didn't do anything particularly bad and i just can't hate person who aren't doing bad things.


I get that, but her plan would fail epically so that's why I couldn't avoid to shake my head despite that she had good intentions. BTW haven't watched yet Bleach and Gundam as I saw the second part of Digimon Adventure Tri lol


----------



## Transience

Oh a Code Geass discussion - nice : ]
And I'm liking the dislike for Suzaku and Euphy

I need to get to watching R2


----------



## karmachameleon

The Perfect Storm said:


> Wtf, Myst is obviously Ti-valuing. xD


Oh why


----------



## Kintsugi

karmachameleon said:


> Oh why


Observe how she reasons and her focus on logical consistency.

Also, I'm Ti-PoLR, so I'm kinda sensitive to it. 



> _*The individual views reality through the lens of logic, immediately recognizing the correctness and appropriateness of things and their proper place in reality and in his system of views and behavior. He freely makes logical assertions, often exaggerated, about new information and experience. He holds highest those rules to which exceptions do not exist, and is a habitual critic of people or things that don't follow a set of rules, whether they are those accepted by the community, or his own, or even the other person's. Although he is able to adopt others' rules, his own are always the last word, and these are subject to continual refinement. Often seen as "demanding", due to high standards.*_


Source


----------



## karmachameleon

Not what it seems like to me, but alright. I think she is Te valuing.


----------



## Kintsugi

karmachameleon said:


> Not what it seems like to me, but alright. I think she is Te valuing.


Explain why you see Te?


----------



## karmachameleon

She just sees the information thats infront of her, then make a judgement out of it. That is Te. The fact that she almost only hangs out in the type me threads, she wants to decide peoples types and them put them in categories, Te.


----------



## Kintsugi

karmachameleon said:


> She just sees the information thats infront of her, then make a judgement out of it. That is Te. The fact that she almost only hangs out in the type me threads, she wants to decide peoples types and them put them in categories, Te.


I think maybe your understanding of Ti vs Te needs a bit of work. You aren't really using Socionics theory here and are interpreting her behaviour through your subjective understanding on how the functions manifest. 

Also, it sounds like you might be confusing Se and Te on some level (and she is a Se-ego, as well as Ti-user). 

This is a good source to look at (if you already haven't).


----------



## FearAndTrembling

karmachameleon said:


> She just sees the information thats infront of her, then make a judgement out of it. That is Te. The fact that she almost only hangs out in the type me threads, she wants to decide peoples types and them put them in categories, Te.


It is Ti that obsessively categorizes.


----------



## karmachameleon

FearAndTrembling said:


> It is Ti that obsessively categorizes.


 yeah thats true.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

soseductive said:


> I think Part 1 wasn't just rushed, it wasn't that good overall. Biggest thing i didn't liked in Part 1 is "Dio of the week". (if you know what i mean) I like Part 2 the most, because with every episode it was getting crazier and crazier, while Part 3 was like that only at the beginning and at the end.
> 
> *JoJo Part 3*
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really wonder why all stand users just didn't attacked them at the same time, it would be much more effective)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many episodes you saw? First 20 (or so) are fillers. (i almost dropped it because of that) Even though i didn't like them, i must admit, that because of them Shin was more of a threat in the anime.


Yep, it was the zombie of the week thing that became boring in part 1. Part 2 was so crazy at the end with Kars' evolution into whatever animal he could become (it was like seeing Pokemon or Digimon), and I agree that seemed like plot armor that the stand users didn't attack at once. Though that part would be really short if Jotaro's group got wrecked quickly.

I saw until ep 10 and I got bored with HnK. The punk of the week stuff bored me to death.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Huh. WHy are we discussing Myst's type? I thought it was pretty obvious we are looking at a Ti and Se Ego (or the inverse).


----------



## soseductive

@Mordred Phantom

Damn, i wasn't here for so long that i completely forgot what i wanted to say 

Well, they could split them in different different directions and 5-6 people could attack them at the same time that way or like in Sanctuary Saga (from Saint Seiya) one character could've take on one enemy, while everyone else will move forward. I think that would be more realistic, but maybe Dio is just an IxE and he loves to fuck around just for fun 

I can't say it becomes much better, but it becomes better. I think first fight with Raoh is what hooked me the most. It was surprisingly epic, didn't expected that at all  I wish Shin had such an epic fight. :/ But i must say that even after it becomes better, it's still punk of the week kind of show.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

soseductive said:


> @_Mordred Phantom_
> 
> Damn, i wasn't here for so long that i completely forgot what i wanted to say
> 
> Well, they could split them in different different directions and 5-6 people could attack them at the same time that way or like in Sanctuary Saga (from Saint Seiya) one character could've take on one enemy, while everyone else will move forward. I think that would be more realistic, but maybe Dio is just an IxE and he loves to fuck around just for fun
> 
> I can't say it becomes much better, but it becomes better. I think first fight with Raoh is what hooked me the most. It was surprisingly epic, didn't expected that at all  I wish Shin had such an epic fight. :/ But i must say that even after it becomes better, it's still punk of the week kind of show.


I guess that Ne dom could work for Dio, as he really had no more plans than to screw with JoJo and his crew. I wouldn't be surprised if he's basically the Joker of JoJo as he does shit for the evulz. Also his spiky hair reminded me a bit of Terumi. I could see Terumi being some mix of the Joker and Dio lol

I think I will better watch the animes that I'm checking now before trying to continue watching HnK. After all current JoJo part also seems to be criminal of the week for now.


----------



## SheWolf

I should probably be more active in other threads besides Beta. Especially since it's kind of nuts over there now.

So. Hello Gamma Quadra.


----------



## soseductive

Mordred Phantom said:


> I guess that Ne dom could work for Dio, as he really had no more plans than to screw with JoJo and his crew. I wouldn't be surprised if he's basically the Joker of JoJo as he does shit for the evulz. Also his spiky hair reminded me a bit of Terumi. I could see Terumi being some mix of the Joker and Dio lol
> 
> I think I will better watch the animes that I'm checking now before trying to continue watching HnK. After all current JoJo part also seems to be criminal of the week for now.


*JoJo part 3*

* *




I don't really know about him. Sometimes he is serious as shit and sometimes he dick around for some reason. Remember scene when he met Polnareff on the stairs? He could just kill him right there, but he decided to play with him for some reason) But with JoJo he was super cautious and in first part he was kind of beta dude. I heard they took out a lot of jokes from part one, so maybe it's because of that. I actually didn't noticed, but you are right. His transformation at the end reminds me a lot of Terumi.




I don't really think you should pick it up again, because as far as i know it wasn't even finished. I think even Part 7 is kind of villain of the week, but it's not that noticeable. First distance and second half of it didn't felt like that at all.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

soseductive said:


> *JoJo part 3*
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really know about him. Sometimes he is serious as shit and sometimes he dick around for some reason. Remember scene when he met Polnareff on the stairs? He could just kill him right there, but he decided to play with him for some reason) But with JoJo he was super cautious and in first part he was kind of beta dude. I heard they took out a lot of jokes from part one, so maybe it's because of that. I actually didn't noticed, but you are right. His transformation at the end reminds me a lot of Terumi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really think you should pick it up again, because as far as i know it wasn't even finished. I think even Part 7 is kind of villain of the week, but it's not that noticeable. First distance and second half of it didn't felt like that at all.


Maybe Dio is some SLE that's too bored and likes to troll people for fun. That or an ILE trying hard to be like a SLE could work for that vampire, like Terumi is also a tryhard 4chan troll (Dio also has that vibe)


----------



## soseductive

Mordred Phantom said:


> Maybe Dio is some SLE that's too bored and likes to troll people for fun. That or an ILE trying hard to be like a SLE could work for that vampire, like Terumi is also a tryhard 4chan troll (Dio also has that vibe)


Or Araki just didn't know what he wanted to do with him. I'll try to think about it tomorrow, maybe i'll come up with something.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

soseductive said:


> Or Araki just didn't know what he wanted to do with him. I'll try to think about it tomorrow, maybe i'll come up with something.


That also is a good option, and it could explain why Dio isn't consistently written and seems to flip between Ne and Se between Part 1 and Part 3.


----------



## soseductive

Mordred Phantom said:


> That also is a good option, and it could explain why Dio isn't consistently written and seems to flip between Ne and Se between Part 1 and Part 3.


I think a lot of characters in part 3 wasn't consistently written. 
*JoJo part 3* 

* *




Remember how Avdol convinced Polnareff to piss in the pipe in episode 22? He never really acted like that before. I thought it was way out of his character.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

soseductive said:


> I think a lot of characters in part 3 wasn't consistently written.
> *JoJo part 3*
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember how Avdol convinced Polnareff to piss in the pipe in episode 22? He never really acted like that before. I thought it was way out of his character.


True, he changed after he appeared in the island. Like the Yes I am thing was quite weird to see.


----------



## soseductive

Mordred Phantom said:


> True, he changed after he appeared in the island. Like the Yes I am thing was quite weird to see.


When i saw that i was actually really confused and didn't know how to react to it. I know it supposed to be funny and to be honest it was, but i didn't like it. Do you think i took everything too seriously? People say that JoJo is great, because it doesn't take itself too seriously, but i feel like sometimes JoJo goes beyond that and doesn't take itself seriously at all. It's like "Remember what happened before? Let's throw it into trash can!". And when people praise it, questions pops up in my head. What does it mean "take itself too seriously"? Have a cohesive story is "take itself too seriously"? Or have good written characters is "take itself too seriously"? I like JoJo and it is one of my favs, but i feel like a lot of other JoJo fans just makes me mad


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> That does make sense; an LSI for example would probably be unlikely to embarrass themselves by acting like a clown. They don't seem like a type that would be over the top. They don't have to be pulled aside and told, "Hey man, why don't you think about what you are doing?" lol.
> 
> I've said before that Fe types can be the most obnoxious people. My theory is they are so involved in the environment they don't know their place in it. They are too immersed in it to really think about what they are doing in it. It is not a separate thing that can be analyzed in relation to them.


That's just them being more concerned about their own emotions than the emotions of others. Emotional atmosphere is really people just so concerned with their own emotions that they do stuff because it makes them happier at the end of the day. There's really no real "others' feelings" to it. LSI just seems that way because they consider it necessary to make it seem like they are concerned with others' feelings in public.


----------



## karmachameleon

soseductive said:


> I actually always wondered why people think like that, because Beta values Ti (rules, structure and all that kind of stuff) and we are not (especially SEEs). We should have reputation of bad boys :O


I think SEE and SLE are the most rowdy types


----------



## SheWolf

karmachameleon said:


> soseductive said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually always wondered why people think like that, because Beta values Ti (rules, structure and all that kind of stuff) and we are not (especially SEEs). We should have reputation of bad boys :O
> 
> 
> 
> I think SEE and SLE are the most rowdy types
Click to expand...

Yeah. I can be rowdy, but yet, being too rowdy and never being serious really gets under my skin quick.

The Merry vs Serious thing is somewhat tricky. For example, an LSI or LII might think they belong in a Serious Quadra and an SEE or IEE would think they belong in a Merry Quadra. Has something to do with the Clock of the Socion.


----------



## karmachameleon

ShieldMaiden said:


> Yeah. I can be rowdy, but yet, being too rowdy and never being serious really gets under my skin quick.
> 
> The Merry vs Serious thing is somewhat tricky. For example, an LSI or LII might think they belong in a Serious Quadra and an SEE or IEE would think they belong in a Merry Quadra. Has something to do with the Clock of the Socion.


Why would they think they belong in those quadras?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ShieldMaiden said:


> Yeah. I can be rowdy, but yet, being too rowdy and never being serious really gets under my skin quick.
> 
> The Merry vs Serious thing is somewhat tricky. For example, an LSI or LII might think they belong in a Serious Quadra and an SEE or IEE would think they belong in a Merry Quadra. Has something to do with the Clock of the Socion.


I think it also has to do with thinkers do not consider the personal element as much. So they can appear serious. An LSI can appear more serious than IEE for example. In dichotomies I use a chess analogy. Thinkers focus more on the board/game. Feelers focus more on the pieces. They take the pieces into consideration more than thinkers. 

Keirsey said thinkers are more "tough minded". It can be as simple as thinking is just saying what one actually thinks. lol. Which is often rude as fuck. That is largely what feeling is. Extroverted feeling would be sacrificing those thoughts for what makes the other person feel good. A Ti dom is gonna say what is logical or what they THINK.


----------



## SheWolf

karmachameleon said:


> Why would they think they belong in those quadras?


Just from personal observation from those I've seen around the forum and also from reading about the Clock of the Socion. And I'm not saying that all LSI's, for example, think they are in a serious Quadra. Just seems to be a trend I've observed.

The clock of the Socion, for example, it says that SEE's are the most "Beta-like" of the Gammas. It's explained a bit better here:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...n-Energy-Dynamics-of-Quadra-and-Benefit-Rings

And yeah, most thinkers don't seem put as much weight on relational interactions.


----------



## soseductive

FearAndTrembling said:


> That does make sense; an LSI for example would probably be unlikely to embarrass themselves by acting like a clown. They don't seem like a type that would be over the top. They don't have to be pulled aside and told, "Hey man, why don't you think about what you are doing?" lol.
> 
> I've said before that Fe types can be the most obnoxious people. My theory is they are so involved in the environment they don't know their place in it. They are too immersed in it to really think about what they are doing in it. It is not a separate thing that can be analyzed in relation to them.


I don't really know, from my experience LSIs are more fun than me and even less serious in a way. I feel like they want to have fun, but they kind of shy about it. Overall they give an impression of people who always positivly look at things. I also feel that we don't have reputation of bad boys because of Fi. Maybe, it's kind of make us seem more "squishy" than beta aggressors.



FearAndTrembling said:


> Are you the guy was going on about Goodfellas and Henry Hill? You said he is an LSI. Maybe he is, take that example. Hill is not one of these clowns but does feel comfortable in that crowd to a large degree. It's a very crazy crowd too.


I do think it's pretty beta movie to me it feels like a mix between LSI and IEI. I inclined to believe he's LSI, because even morale of the film was "follow the rules if you don't want to be at the bottom".


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ShieldMaiden said:


> Just from personal observation from those I've seen around the forum and also from reading about the Clock of the Socion. And I'm not saying that all LSI's, for example, think they are in a serious Quadra. Just seems to be a trend I've observed.
> 
> The clock of the Socion, for example, it says that SEE's are the most "Beta-like" of the Gammas. It's explained a bit better here:
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - The Clock of the Socion: Energy Dynamics of Quadra and Benefit Rings
> 
> And yeah, most thinkers don't seem put as much weight on relational interactions.


Nice read. Makes us sound like 4 mafia families. I like the IEI part.

It also made me lol when the first thing said about ILI is that they are the most intelligent type in the quadra. Not saying it isn't true or is true, it is just funny to see the bravado.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Jeremy8419 said:


> That's just them being more concerned about their own emotions than the emotions of others. Emotional atmosphere is really people just so concerned with their own emotions that they do stuff because it makes them happier at the end of the day. There's really no real "others' feelings" to it. LSI just seems that way because they consider it necessary to make it seem like they are concerned with others' feelings in public.



Well that can perhaps be applied to Fe in general. That is like the biggest critique of it. That it is fake and self serving.


----------



## SheWolf

FearAndTrembling said:


> Nice read. Makes us sound like 4 mafia families. I like the IEI part.


When I first got into Socionics and learned about the quadras that was my sort of comparison too. Mafias, packs, four kingdoms... that's definitely kind of how most sources seem to present them.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ShieldMaiden said:


> When I first got into Socionics and learned about the quadras that was my sort of comparison too. Mafias, packs, four kingdoms... that's definitely kind of how most sources seem to present them.



Humans will divide themselves over anything. I have seen quadra on quadra crime all the time.


Freud called it the narcissism of petty differences. The name is pretty self explanatory. Maybe that is why he thought America was a mistake. You can't mix that many cultural differences in one place.

But Freud was wrong and did not understand the power of symbolism. That is what people are loyal to. What they fight and die for.


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> Well that can perhaps be applied to Fe in general. That is like the biggest critique of it. That it is fake and self serving.


Tim. Bob.

Fi.<-Tim.(Fe).-> <-Fe.Bob.->(Fi.)

Tim is extroverted Fe and Bob is introverted Fi. If it's a visible emotion, it's Fe. Otherwise it is Fi. Tim may be affecting Bob's Fe that is coming back, but it is due to Bob's Fi reading Tim's Fe. Tim only cares about getting to keep Fe'ing. Bob only cares about Tim's Fe, even though Tim's Fe is Fe itself.


----------



## Jeremy8419

FearAndTrembling said:


> Humans will divide themselves over anything. I have seen quadra on quadra crime all the time.
> 
> Freud called it the narcissism of petty differences. The name is pretty self explanatory. Maybe that is why he thought America was a mistake. You can't mix that many cultural differences in one place.
> 
> But Freud was wrong and did not understand the power of symbolism. That is what people are loyal to. What they fight and die for.


Maybe he was just Se PoLR and didn't wanna wail on Beta lol


----------



## SheWolf

FearAndTrembling said:


> Well that can perhaps be applied to Fe in general. That is like the biggest critique of it. That it is fake and self serving.


Funny. I thought Fi was usually stereotyped as being selfish.


----------



## soseductive

Jeremy8419 said:


> Tim. Bob.
> 
> Fi.<-Tim.(Fe).-> <-Fe.Bob.->(Fi.)
> 
> Tim is extroverted Fe and Bob is introverted Fi. If it's a visible emotion, it's Fe. Otherwise it is Fi. Tim may be affecting Bob's Fe that is coming back, but it is due to Bob's Fi reading Tim's Fe. Tim only cares about getting to keep Fe'ing. Bob only cares about Tim's Fe, even though Tim's Fe is Fe itself.


I don't think i care about other people's visible emotions. I want to pierce through their hearts and implant my emotions into them. This is my dream (*/▽＼*)


----------



## SheWolf

Well, on a random note!

Life is Strange just downloaded after about 3 hours of waiting. :'D


----------



## Jeremy8419

soseductive said:


> I don't think i care about other people's visible emotions. I want to pierce through their hearts and implant my emotions into them. This is my dream (*/▽＼*)


Yes, yes. Everyone knows about female ESI's and their Dom fetish lol. Don't get too excited about it or you'll scare the poor little ILE guy away lol.


----------



## soseductive

Jeremy8419 said:


> Yes, yes. Everyone knows about female ESI's and their Dom fetish lol. Don't get too excited about it or you'll scare the poor little ILE guy away lol.


Ok, i'll try to do as you told me right after you'll stop beating your wife, mr "Wild Hands" Jeremy.


----------



## Jeremy8419

soseductive said:


> Ok, i'll try to do as you told me right after you'll stop beating your wife, mr "Wild Hands" Jeremy.


Uh, what? Lol. I don't get the joke lol.


----------



## Max

Wait... 

How did I get here? 

(Seriously though. How am I subbed to this topic when I am clearly Beta as Beta can be yet some people insist I am ENTj and Gamma?)


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


----------



## soseductive

Jeremy8419 said:


> Uh, what? Lol. I don't get the joke lol.


You know... maybe, you should improve your intellectual level, read some books? Maybe, then you'll get it.


----------



## Jeremy8419

soseductive said:


> You know... maybe, you should improve your intellectual level, read some books? Maybe, then you'll get it.


Nah, I'm good. Thanks for the offer, though.


----------



## soseductive

Jeremy8419 said:


> Nah, I'm good. Thanks for the offer, though.


Typical barbarian.

Jeremy: Reading books are bad! Beating women is good! ヾ( ￣O￣)ツ


----------



## Max

soseductive said:


> Typical barbarian.
> 
> Jeremy: Reading books are bad! Beating women is good! ヾ( ￣O￣)ツ


Are you sure that whoever gave you sugar was sure that it was actually sugar?


----------



## Jeremy8419

soseductive said:


> Typical barbarian.
> 
> Jeremy: Reading books are bad! Beating women is good! ヾ( ￣O￣)ツ


Yeah, but that's where you lost me, because I don't have a wife and have never struck a woman before lol. If I don't get the reference, which may be humorous, I can't possibly know what to look up lol.


----------



## soseductive

Jeremy8419 said:


> Yeah, but that's where you lost me, because I don't have a wife and have never struck a woman before lol. If I don't get the reference, which may be humorous, I can't possibly know what to look up lol.


I like how you didn't mention before what. Before you were 5? Before breakfast? Before kicking?


----------



## Jeremy8419

soseductive said:


> I like how you didn't mention before what. Before you were 5? Before breakfast? Before kicking?


Uh, you okay?


----------



## soseductive

Jeremy8419 said:


> Uh, you okay?


What? I just give you what you gave me.


----------



## Jeremy8419

soseductive said:


> What? I just give you what you gave me.


It was a lesson to a male, not an admonishment to you.


----------



## soseductive

Jeremy8419 said:


> It was a lesson to a male, not an admonishment to you.


What? I don't understand your gibberish. What kind of lesson to a male? What are you talking about?


----------



## Jeremy8419

soseductive said:


> What? I don't understand your gibberish. What kind of lesson to a male? What are you talking about?


Then don't worry about it? We're cool.


----------



## soseductive

Jeremy8419 said:


> Then don't worry about it? We're cool.


As @Mordred Phantom would said I can't do nothing, but shake my head.


----------



## Jamaia

Gamma people, stop fighting and come explain romance to me: http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/823114-victim-infantile-relationship.html 

You can talk about aggressors too .


----------



## SheWolf

Jamaia said:


> Gamma people, stop fighting and come explain romance to me: http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/823114-victim-infantile-relationship.html
> 
> You can talk about aggressors too .


Curious too. Because none of the romance styles fit me all that well.


----------



## Jeremy8419

ShieldMaiden said:


> Curious too. Because none of the romance styles fit me all that well.


Keep in mind, an Alpha wrote it, so it may not be the most accurate description of how each style views themselves or their compatibles. Also, it neglects that even if it is correct for how the styles see such things, the individual may do differently in reality or do a mixture.

If you describe yours though, I may be able to decipher it into one of them.


----------



## SheWolf

Jeremy8419 said:


> ShieldMaiden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Curious too. Because none of the romance styles fit me all that well.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind, an Alpha wrote it, so it may not be the most accurate description of how each style views themselves or their compatibles. Also, it neglects that even if it is correct for how the styles see such things, the individual may do differently in reality or do a mixture.
> 
> If you describe yours though, I may be able to decipher it into one of them.
Click to expand...

I.... Can't really explain my romance styl right. However, I would hate having an Aggressor as a partner


----------



## SheWolf

Also, I know a guy that fits the Caregiver descriptions. He drives me insane. Like give me some damn space, man.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Well, SEE is Aggressor. A guy concerned with taking your space sounds more like Aggressor just from that, though. Maybe you're just an Aggressor that values independency? I should point out that all four are really like the extreme polar versions of each. Most SEE women I know really just tease and/or physically tease in a playful manner. That or give physical contact often like an arm squeeze or a light nudge or something.


----------



## SheWolf

Jeremy8419 said:


> Well, SEE is Aggressor. A guy concerned with taking your space sounds more like Aggressor just from that, though. Maybe you're just an Aggressor that values independency? I should point out that all four are really like the extreme polar versions of each. Most SEE women I know really just tease and/or physically tease in a playful manner. That or give physical contact often like an arm squeeze or a light nudge or something.


What I mean is that he's always trying to "take care" of me. 

I value independence A LOT.

But, on the other spectrum, I'm very touchy-feely. Like you described as an aggressor. I'm very playful in that sense. I think it may be my sx variant.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Hmm. Hey @ShieldMaiden, you may want to answer some questions I posed on that romance thread linked above. You can get things out where you can examine them better, and discuss the differences.


----------



## karmachameleon

aggressor and victim lol


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

karmachameleon said:


> aggressor and victim lol


Mmm. Excellent example. I love how ballsy she is. Great movie, and one of those times when I actually identify with a Jim Carey role. Love him to pieces, but good god how does he have so much silly energy most of the time!?


----------



## Kintsugi

Jeremy8419 said:


> Most SEE women I know really just tease and/or physically tease in a playful manner. That or give physical contact often like an arm squeeze or a light nudge or something.


I'm like this.

I tickle, poke, bite, and tease my partner all the time. It's really funny doing that to an ILI, it makes them melt into a ball of goo. :kitteh:


----------



## Jeremy8419

The Perfect Storm said:


> I'm like this.
> 
> I tickle, poke, bite, and tease my partner all the time. It's really funny doing that to an ILI, it makes them melt into a ball of goo. :kitteh:


Yeah. To me it's more of a "I should be more like that..." which is very appreciable, btw.


----------



## Kintsugi

Jeremy8419 said:


> Yeah. To me it's more of a "I should be more like that..." which is very appreciable, btw.


I once dated an EII who told me off for being too "aggressive", lol. He said I was too much of a loose canon for him.

My partner loves it though. I love the dynamic we have (and the fact that I don't have to hold back).


----------



## Jeremy8419

The Perfect Storm said:


> I once dated an EII who told me off for being too "aggressive", lol. He said I was too much of a loose canon for him.
> 
> My partner loves it though. I love the dynamic we have (and the fact that I don't have to hold back).


Yeah, no worries. I totally get it. Just have a slightly different vision for myself. Hearing about your stuff helps me take a different perspective on things though, and try to take a better balance and more optimistic look on stuff, which is severely lacking in today's society.


----------



## soseductive

The Perfect Storm said:


> I tickle, poke, bite, and tease


You are just like my sister. I am scared of tickling and she always did those things to me. -_-


----------



## Kintsugi

soseductive said:


> You are just like my sister. I am scared of tickling and she always did those things to me. -_-


Well, I'd be pretty freaked out if my sibling teased me in the way I tease my partner, haha. 

I actually hate being tickled myself but I enjoy tickling him because it makes him all gooey. It's like knocking the ILI off that little throne of theirs. Delicious. :3


----------



## SheWolf

The Perfect Storm said:


> I'm like this.
> 
> I tickle, poke, bite, and tease my partner all the time. It's really funny doing that to an ILI, it makes them melt into a ball of goo. :kitteh:


AN ILI WHO CAN BE TICKLED.

THAT'S

SO

KAWAII


----------



## Kintsugi

@ShieldMaiden

It's pretty adorable and hilarious. Especially when they start trying to be all Ni-Te "serious" again and you just leap on them and they fall on a heap on the floor. xD

ILI/SEE duality = SO MUCH fun. ^_^


----------



## soseductive

The Perfect Storm said:


> Well, I'd be pretty freaked out if my sibling teased me in the way I tease my partner, haha.
> 
> I actually hate being tickled myself but I enjoy tickling him because it makes him all gooey. It's like knocking the ILI off that little throne of theirs. Delicious. :3


I don't know, she tickled me pretty hardcore in the ways i didn't know i could be tickled before.

It seems like she enjoyed effect it had on me, too. I didn't really liked it myself, but it were the only moments when she was really happy, so i couldn't disturb her.


----------



## SheWolf

The Perfect Storm said:


> @_ShieldMaiden_
> 
> It's pretty adorable and hilarious. Especially when they start trying to be all Ni-Te "serious" again and you just leap on them and they fall on a heap on the floor. xD
> 
> ILI/SEE duality = SO MUCH fun. ^_^



That sounds delightful. XD Sounds like he's fun to pester. I want one. Where does one find an ILI offline? >.>

I imagine they are just kind of like this:


----------



## Kintsugi

@ShieldMaiden

Well, I found mine online. Then I followed him half way across the world to set up home with him, and we'll be married in just under a month. You probably won't find many spending hours and hours debating theory on a typology forum though. They are too-the-point and value efficiency. They are concerned with what "works" (i.e. they want to apply concepts to reality). 

lol @ the image. That cat looks too emotional. ILIs are more composed.


----------



## SheWolf

The Perfect Storm said:


> @_ShieldMaiden_
> 
> Well, I found mine online. Then I followed him half way across the world to set up home with him, and we'll be married in just under a month. You probably won't find many spending hours and hours debating theory on a typology forum though. They are too-the-point and value efficiency. They are concerned with what "works" (i.e. they want to apply concepts to reality).
> 
> lol @ the image. That cat looks too emotional. ILIs are more composed.


Good. I don't like when men aren't composed. I already have enough emotion. I need someone who shuts my emotion down and doesn't "feed" off of it.

In other words, I really need someone who is thick-skinned and doesn't take my abrasiveness/bitchy moments to heart. 

This is actually an art piece made to represent a SEE/ILI duality. XD










Credit for art.


----------



## Kintsugi

ShieldMaiden said:


> Good. I don't like when men aren't composed. I already have enough emotion. I need someone who shuts my emotion down and doesn't "feed" off of it.
> 
> In other words, I really need someone who is thick-skinned and doesn't take my abrasiveness/bitchy moments to heart.


You're speaking my kinda language, girl! 

Sounds like you'd go well with an ILI (they are all that and more) ;3



> This is actually an art piece made to represent a SEE/ILI duality. XD


LOL, there is actually some truth to that.


----------



## Jeremy8419

So, uh, what y'all wanna talk about? Lol


----------



## FearAndTrembling

The Perfect Storm said:


> I'm like this.
> 
> I tickle, poke, bite, and tease my partner all the time. It's really funny doing that to an ILI, it makes them melt into a ball of goo. :kitteh:



I like wrestling around. It's cute to see them try so hard only to be thwarted by my slightest effort. lol. Like me wrestling my dad as a kid. He was much stronger and I had no chance but I still enjoyed it. 







Cool pic. Loved the Conan movies.


----------



## Kintsugi

FearAndTrembling said:


> I like wrestling around. It's cute to see them try so hard only to be thwarted by my slightest effort. lol. Like me wrestling my dad as a kid. He was much stronger and I had no chance but I still enjoyed it.


Meh. You have male strength.

When it comes to will, I'd have your ass pinned before you had a chance to blink. :3

LOL.


----------



## SheWolf

The Perfect Storm said:


> Meh. You have male strength.
> 
> When it comes to will, I'd have your ass pinned before you had a chance to blink. :3
> 
> LOL.


I tell people, "I handle animals that weigh a ton that may not want anything to do with me and can knock me out in a single kick. I also get on their backs and make them do what I want. You think I'm afraid of you?"

XD


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ShieldMaiden said:


> I tell people, "I handle animals that weigh a ton that may not want anything to do with me and can knock me out in a single kick. I also get on their backs and make them do what I want. You think I'm afraid of you?"
> 
> XD



I thought of that when you mentioned horses. Those things are big and scare me. One big muscle. One kick and off goes my head or he breaks my sternum and/or crushes all my organs. lol.

I've read that is a quality of weak Se. Scared of being hurt in ways like that. Not trusting your own strength or the strength of others. Forceful things scare me. Earth moving things. Big trucks. Heavy machinery. Power tools. Things where I can hurt myself. Where one is supposed to have faith in the physical world pulling you through.


----------



## Kintsugi

I'm legitimately turned on right now.


----------



## SheWolf

FearAndTrembling said:


> I thought of that when you mentioned horses. Those things are big and scare me. One big muscle. One kick and off goes my head or he breaks my sternum and/or crushes all my organs. lol.
> 
> I've read that is a quality of weak Se. Scared of being hurt in ways like that. Not trusting your own strength or the strength of others. Forceful things scare me. Earth moving things. Big trucks. Heavy machinery. Power tools. Things where I can hurt myself. Where one is supposed to have faith in the physical world pulling you through.


I'm not without fear for some "Se" things. I'm a careful driver for example. Some phobias are just individual. My physical strength is something I've never doubted and put a lot of faith in. I was somewhat of a scaredy cat when I was little but that came from being so sheltered. I am still an E6, always aware of danger. But as I've gotten older a lot of that fear has gone out the window. My sister makes fun of me sometimes because I'm not scared of the things I should be scared of. Like riding a horse that just wants to take off with me, wanting to go storm chasing or deep sea diving, etc. 
But what I am scared of? Talking to that cute guy in math class because of my social anxiety and overall just being awkward around people.


----------



## SheWolf

The Perfect Storm said:


> I'm legitimately turned on right now.


Did I miss something?


----------



## Kintsugi

ShieldMaiden said:


> Did I miss something?


Sexuality is a complicated thing.


----------



## soseductive

FearAndTrembling said:


> Those things are big and scare me. One big muscle.


Then better don't disturb me when i am taking a shower.


----------



## karmachameleon

mm one big muscle
one long and thick muscle


----------



## SheWolf

soseductive said:


> Then better don't disturb me when i am taking a shower.


Same.


Also, ya'll nasty. XD XD


----------



## Kintsugi

soseductive said:


> Then better don't disturb me when i am taking a shower.


:laughing:


----------



## SheWolf

Somehow, I always end up wrinkling my nose when I'm with you people. XD


----------



## karmachameleon

Guys: do your penises involuntarily flex when youre fucking someone? i need to know.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

karmachameleon said:


> mm one big muscle
> one long and thick muscle


----------



## Kintsugi

LOL, too funny.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Uhhhh... Okay... Had the notion earlier today, after placing my thoughts on how a headache was affecting me, but now I'm fairly positive that my mind booted up in ILI mode today.


----------



## karmachameleon

My mom can't shut up for 10 seconds


----------



## SheWolf

Me @ thread


----------



## Kintsugi

ShieldMaiden said:


> Me @ thread


Yeah, it had potential.

*smirks*


----------



## karmachameleon

Betas taking over the gamma thread.


----------



## Kintsugi

karmachameleon said:


> Betas taking over the gamma thread.



Pffff

the question is, you can talk the talk....but can you walk the walk? :3

thread carefully. xD


----------



## SheWolf

the perfect storm said:


> thread carefully. Xd


NO puns!

N O.

PUN F R E E ZONE.


----------



## SheWolf

Hey, by the way, I'm wondering if this may be a Se thing or not?

I can't meditate. Like seriously. Which is unfortunate. I've never been able to "clear my mind." I get bored or distracted by something. I just can't relax and shut my head off.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The Perfect Storm said:


> Take it for what you will. Enneagram is a crazy journey.
> 
> I was fiercely sceptical of it until the bitter end.
> 
> It's just another model. I personally find it useful.


Mine didn't seem very different than my sociotype.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

The Perfect Storm said:


> Drugs are just another tool, or whatever.
> 
> The real demon is our own minds.



I like this point by Jung:

*Goethe's Faust aptly says: "Im Anfang wr die Tat [in the beginning was the deed]." "Deeds" were never invented, they were done; thoughts, on the other hand, are a relatively late discovery of man. First he was moved to deeds by unconscious factors; it was only a long time afterward that he began to reflect upon the causes that had moved him; and it took it him a very long time indeed to arrive at the preposterous idea that he must have moved himself . . . his mind being unable to identify any other motivating force than his own. 

"These inner motives [forces from within as well as by stimuli from without] spring from a deep source that is not made by consciousness and is not under its control. In the mythology of earlier times, these forces were called mana, or spirits, demons, and gods. They are as active today as they ever were were. If they conform to our wishes. we call them happy hunches or impulses and pat ourselves on the back for beings smart fellows. If they go against us, then we say that it is just bad luck, or that certain people are against us, or that the cause of our misfortunes must be pathological. The one thing we refuse to admit is that we are dependent upon “powers” that are beyond our control.

It is true, however, that in recent times civilized man has acquired a certain amount of will power, which he can apply where he pleases. He has learned to do his work efficiently without having recourse to chanting and drumming to hypnotize him into the state of doing. He can even dispense with a daily prayer for divine aid. He can carry out what he proposes to do, and he can apparently translate his ideas into action without a hitch, whereas the primitive seems to be hampered at each step by fears, superstitions, and other unseen obstacles to action. The motto “Where there’s a will, there’s a way” is the superstition of modern man.

Yet in order to sustain his creed, contemporary man pays the price in a remarkable lack of introspection. He is blind to the fact that, with all his rationality and efficiency, he is possessed by “powers” that are beyond his control. His gods and demons have not disappeared at all; they have mealy got new names. They keep him on the run with relentlessness, vague apprehensions, psychological complications, an insatiable need for pills, alcohol, tobacco, food—and above all, a large array of neuroses."

A man likes to believe that he is the master of his soul. But as long as he is unable to control his moods and emotions, or to be conscious of the myriad secret ways in which unconscious factors insinuate themselves into his arrangements and decisions, he is certainly not his own master .

*

*"We are a psychic process which we do not control, or only partly direct. Consequently, we cannot have any final judgment about ourselves or our lives."*​


In other words, "Only God can judge me."


----------



## Kintsugi

Jeremy8419 said:


> Mine didn't seem very different than my sociotype.


Perhaps. ^_^

Try approaching it with a blank slate.


----------



## karmachameleon

soseductive said:


> Yeah, but ignoring of your physical condition do not equal action. As creative Se i take action only when my base telling me to do it nothing more, nothing less. LIE and ILI have desire for that in some way, but they cannot produce it as ESI or SEE can and only SEE (well, and SLE) can produce it constantly.


What do you define as action? Si polr for xIEs is that they feel as they need to be productive. This doesnt mean that they constantly set goals and go after them. It's more like theyre always reading, looking up information, having discussions, debates rather than focusing on the here and now enjoyable activities that has no impact on their future like meditating.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

ShieldMaiden said:


> Hey, by the way, I'm wondering if this may be a Se thing or not?
> 
> I can't meditate. Like seriously. Which is unfortunate. I've never been able to "clear my mind." I get bored or distracted by something. I just can't relax and shut my head off.


Huh. I'd imagine it is the lack of an Introverted Irrational function that you have developed well. I'd be willing to bet Si and Ni Egos can do so more easily.


----------



## Kintsugi

@FearAndTrembling

And that is why I love you and your random quotes. ^_^


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Huh. I'd imagine it is the lack of an Introverted Irrational function that you have developed well. I'd be willing to bet Si and Ni Egos can do so more easily.


I've heard of things like Sensory Deprivation tanks. It's basically where you are submerged in salt water that completely soundproof and no light. People have reported that they start beginning to hallucinate. Seeing beings from other worlds and other such creepy things. For some that sounds awesome, for me that literally sounds like hell. No thanks.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

The Perfect Storm said:


> @_FearAndTrembling_
> 
> And that is why I love you and your random quotes. ^_^


Voltaire is cool too. He said that if God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him. I agree with that. The Varities of Religious Experience by William James is a great book. James defines religion broadly as something like, "religion is one's acceptance of the universe." He documented many people in the book. The religious conversion of Tolstoy was broken down brilliantly. It is too long to post so I will give a quote by Voltaire near the end of his life. Acceptance of the universe does not mean to quit fighting either. Not at all. But as Jung said we cannot change anything until we accept it. 

*Voltaire, for example, writes thus to a friend, at the age of seventy-three : " As for myself," he says, "weak as I am, I carry on the war to the last moment, I get a hundred pike-thrusts, I return two hundred, and I laugh. I see near my door Geneva on fire with quarrels over nothing, and I laugh again ; and, thank God, I can look upon the world as a farce even when it becomes as tragic as it sometimes does. All comes out even at the end of the day, and all comes out still more even when all the days are over."
*


----------



## Jeremy8419

The Perfect Storm said:


> Perhaps. ^_^
> 
> Try approaching it with a blank slate.


It have anything to say for my type as far as effective communication of my end as far as things go?


----------



## soseductive

karmachameleon said:


> What do you define as action? Si polr for xIEs is that they feel as they need to be productive. This doesnt mean that they constantly set goals and go after them. It's more like theyre always reading, looking up information, having discussions, debates rather than focusing on the here and now enjoyable activities that has no impact on their future like meditating.


It's when you make something move in the outside world by using your senses. (I am not the master of Ti, so i hope it's good enough explanation) Si polr is just when you are bad at taking care of your health and don't care about comfort at all or how good food tastes. LIE because of that are usually bad at cooking.


----------



## Kintsugi

FearAndTrembling said:


> Voltaire is cool too. He said that if God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him. I agree with that. The Varities of Religious Experience by William James is a great book. James defines religion broadly as something like, "religion is one's acceptance of the universe." He documented many people in the book. The religious conversion of Tolstoy was broken down brilliantly. It is too long to post so I will give a quote by Voltaire near the end of his life. Acceptance of the universe does not mean to quit fighting either. Not at all. But as Jung said we cannot change anything until we accept it.
> 
> *Voltaire, for example, writes thus to a friend, at the age of seventy-three : " As for myself," he says, "weak as I am, I carry on the war to the last moment, I get a hundred pike-thrusts, I return two hundred, and I laugh. I see near my door Geneva on fire with quarrels over nothing, and I laugh again ; and, thank God, I can look upon the world as a farce even when it becomes as tragic as it sometimes does. All comes out even at the end of the day, and all comes out still more even when all the days are over."
> *


_"I can look upon the world as a farce even when it becomes as tragic as it sometimes does."_

What is it about coming face to face with our own mortality that makes us so wise?

Ahh, life is bitter-sweet. 




Jeremy8419 said:


> It have anything to say for my type as far as effective communication of my end as far as things go?


lol, that's for you to discover.


----------



## karmachameleon

soseductive said:


> It's when you make something move in the outside world by using your senses. (I am not the master of Ti, so i hope it's good enough explanation) Si polr is just when you are bad at taking care of your health and don't care about comfort at all or how good food tastes. LIE because of that are usually bad at cooking.


Si is not necessarily health. It's internal sensory experience... 
For example: an Si dom can totally neglect their long term health because it strains them and they want to focus on having a pleasant experience. Thats why they have the stereotype of being fat. lol


----------



## Kintsugi

I can't help it.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

karmachameleon said:


> Si is not necessarily health. It's internal sensory experience...
> For example: an Si dom can totally neglect their health because it strains them and they want to focus on having a pleasant experience.


I was just thinking how Se is more sensation than Si is. It may be more accurate to say Si is perception and Se is sensation. A perception does not need outside input. If I hallucinate that is a perception but not a sensation. If a cat scratches me and I feel pain that is sensation.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

The Perfect Storm said:


> I can't help it.



Love that song.

Love this one too:






and this. crank it:


----------



## SheWolf

karmachameleon said:


> Si is not necessarily health. It's internal sensory experience...
> For example: an Si dom can totally neglect their long term health because it strains them and they want to focus on having a pleasant experience. Thats why they have the stereotype of being fat. lol


I read somewhere that Alpha Quadra is the most likely quadra to be involved in drug use do to it being a pleasant internal experience.  When I think of Alpha Quadra, I think of a hippie music festival for some reason. Lmao.


----------



## karmachameleon




----------



## SheWolf

Is anyone here familiar with the Four Temperaments?

I've heard sometimes they correlate with your type. 

I remember doing some stupid little test and ended up getting Melancholic. >.>


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ShieldMaiden said:


> I read somewhere that Alpha Quadra is the most likely quadra to be involved in drug use do to it being a pleasant internal experience.  When I think of Alpha Quadra, I think of a hippie music festival for some reason. Lmao.



I picture the same thing and it is largely true. They are often fun parties too. Most of my friends were like that. Always a fuckin drum circle by the end of the night. Bongos.

But Beta and Se types like to party. Just think of any rap video. lol


----------



## SheWolf

FearAndTrembling said:


> I picture the same thing and it is largely true. They are often fun parties too. Most of my friends were like that. Always a fuckin drum circle by the end of the night. Bongos.
> 
> But Beta and Se types like to party. Just think of any rap video. lol



Eh. I'm not really either of those things. I do like parties, but not the guzzling, grinding, club-type of parties.

This song's lyrics, I swear, seem like they were written about me. My sister says it's my theme song and she thinks of me whenever it comes on. It's bloody true.


----------



## karmachameleon

This is my fav 2pac song lol, just cause the first verse


----------



## karmachameleon

I've been wanting to send a job application to this place for MONTHS and i always postpone it til the next day. I hate myself


----------



## SheWolf

I'm off to go play some Life is Strange since my baby niece is asleep for a nap now.

Tag/Quote/PM if you need me. 

Peace.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

karmachameleon said:


> This is my fav 2pac song lol, just cause the first verse



Fuck ya. 

"I fucked your bitch you fat motherfucker." lol. One of the best "answer songs" ever.

I think Tupac is a 3 and Biggie is a 9. I remember when Hit em Up came out and people were expecting Biggie to respond with his own song. Many people were ready to help him with an answer to Tupac. And Biggie just wasn't about that. It is was more important for Tupac to maintain an image.






I made the change from a common thief
To up close and personal with Robin Leach
And I'm far from cheap, I smoke skunk with my peeps all day
Spread love, it's the Brooklyn way
The Moet and Alize keep me pissy
Girls used to diss me
Now they write letters 'cause they miss me
I never thought it could happen, this rappin' stuff
I was too used to packin' gats and stuff
Now honies play me close like butter played toast
From the Mississippi down to the east coast
Condos in Queens, indo for weeks
Sold out seats to hear Biggie Smalls speak
Livin' life without fear
Puttin' 5 karats in my baby girl's ear
Lunches, brunches, interviews by the pool
Considered a fool 'cause I dropped out of high school
Stereotypes of a black male misunderstood
And it's still all good

Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis
When I was dead broke, man I couldn't picture this
50 inch screen, money green leather sofa
Got two rides, a limousine with a chauffeur
Phone bill about two G's flat
No need to worry, my accountant handles that
And my whole crew is loungin'
Celebratin' every day, no more public housin'
Thinkin' back on my one-room shack
Now my mom pimps a Ac' with minks on her back
And she loves to show me off, of course
Smiles every time my face is up in The Source
We used to fuss when the landlord dissed us
No heat, wonder why Christmas missed us
Birthdays was the worst days
Now we sip champagne when we thirst-ay
Uh, damn right I like the life I live
'Cause I went from negative to positive
And it's all...

(It's all good)​


----------



## Jeremy8419

/peeks in window. Hello? Hellooooo???

Everyone goes to sleep when I leave :|


----------



## Verity

ShieldMaiden said:


> Hey, by the way, I'm wondering if this may be a Se thing or not?
> 
> I can't meditate. Like seriously. Which is unfortunate. I've never been able to "clear my mind." I get bored or distracted by something. I just can't relax and shut my head off.


Head types in the enneagram usually have alot of "mental chatter" going on. What you wrote sounds very 6-ish. My subjective experience with Pe-leads is that they have an even harder time with it.

I don't have much personal experience with meditation, but I have read some things about it due to an interest in the science of consciousness; Learning to breath correctly is supposedly a fundamental part of meditation, and it usually takes alot of time to learn(I imagine this is even harder for an Extrovert with Si-ignoring/DS). A common misconception is that it's all about primarily closing your thoughts off immediately. 

It's kinda like taking drugs in the sense that in order to optimize the experience you want to make sure to do it in an environment where you can minimize the stressful factors.


As for the overall discussion about drugs and fear, I like to experience things as intensely as possible, and I usually look at my own fear as an indicator of what I should do. I mean, sometimes I wallow in it and romanticize the experience, but ultimately I tend to feel as if I must confront it.


----------



## SheWolf

Verity said:


> ShieldMaiden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, by the way, I'm wondering if this may be a Se thing or not?
> 
> I can't meditate. Like seriously. Which is unfortunate. I've never been able to "clear my mind." I get bored or distracted by something. I just can't relax and shut my head off.
> 
> 
> 
> Head types in the enneagram usually have alot of "mental chatter" going on. What you wrote sounds very 6-ish. My subjective experience with Pe-leads is that they have an even harder time with it.
> 
> I don't have much personal experience with meditation, but I have read some things about it due to an interest in the science of consciousness; Learning to breath correctly is supposedly a fundamental part of meditation, and it usually takes alot of time to learn(I imagine this is even harder for an Extrovert with Si-ignoring/DS). A common misconception is that it's all about primarily closing your thoughts off immediately.
> 
> It's kinda like taking drugs in the sense that in order to optimize the experience you want to make sure to do it in an environment where you can minimize the stressful factors.
Click to expand...

Bleeccckk. Sounds kinda boring anyway.


----------



## Verity

ShieldMaiden said:


> Bleeccckk. Sounds kinda boring anyway.


Some people claim they have been able to divorce themselves from their sense of self through meditation, all your fears and worries gone, while being in tune with the "rythm" of the world. Does that sound boring?

Although I'm not sure at all if the time invested in reaching that goal would be worth it for me. I prefer trying the quicker alternative.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> Some people claim they have been able to divorce themselves from their sense of self through meditation, all your fears and worries gone, while being in tune with the "rythm" of the world. Does that sound boring?
> 
> Although I'm not sure at all if the time invested in reaching that goal would be worth it for me. I prefer trying the quicker alternative.


That sounds like going to sleep, to me.


----------



## SheWolf

Verity said:


> Some people claim they have been able to divorce themselves from their sense of self through meditation, all your fears and worries gone, while being in tune with the "rythm" of the world. Does that sound boring?


Perhaps its just my morals and/or beliefs... but meditation isn't going to make your fears and worries go away. At least not permanently. I see no point in running from problems.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Verity said:


> Some people claim they have been able to divorce themselves from their sense of self through meditation, all your fears and worries gone, while being in tune with the "rythm" of the world. Does that sound boring?
> 
> Although I'm not sure at all if the time invested in reaching that goal would be worth it for me. I prefer trying the quicker alternative.


Fears are best confronted directly, even then, I think fears and worries are undervalued; they're quite powerful motivators.


----------



## Verity

Jeremy8419 said:


> That sounds like going to sleep, to me.


Immersing yourself completely in the world seems like the opposite of going to sleep imo. Like, the more intense my dream is, the stronger I experience my sense of self.



ShieldMaiden said:


> Perhaps its just my morals and/or beliefs... but meditation isn't going to make your fears and worries go away. At least not permanently. I see no point in running from problems.


Of course not. But you where the one who wrote that it sounded boring, silly.

Edit(forgot to adress your point): It's true your problems woulnd't go away, but it could make it easier to handle them, and therefore make life more enjoyable.



The_Wanderer said:


> Fears are best confronted directly, even then, I think fears and worries are undervalued; they're quite powerful motivators.


Yeah.


----------



## Vermillion

@ShieldMaiden @The_Wanderer

I see meditation as offering acceptance and calmness as opposed to avoidance. I'm no pro at it and I quite honestly used to face the problem of unstoppable mental chatter, but I find becoming healthier has helped me put that tendency to rest and clear my mind voluntarily when necessary.

That sort of clear, blank slate helps ground me in reality, accept it for what it is instead of catastrophizing and projecting unnecessary worries onto it, and that mentality actually prepares me to face fears much better. It's a slow and agonizing process sometimes but I get there. Having a clearer mind has afforded me a lot of resilience and courage, and I'm glad for it. I prefer it to the unnatural bluster that too much indulgence in fear creates in an individual.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> Immersing yourself completely in the world seems like the opposite of going to sleep imo. Like, the more intense my dream is, the stronger I experience my sense of self.


As far as I have figured out, with Mental being Conscious, Vital being Preconscious, then Demonstrative should be gateway to the Unconscious; e.g., sleep.

So Ni Demonstrative compared to Ni Leading?


----------



## SheWolf

The_Wanderer said:


> Verity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people claim they have been able to divorce themselves from their sense of self through meditation, all your fears and worries gone, while being in tune with the "rythm" of the world. Does that sound boring?
> 
> Although I'm not sure at all if the time invested in reaching that goal would be worth it for me. I prefer trying the quicker alternative.
> 
> 
> 
> Fears are best confronted directly, even then, I think fears and worries are undervalued; they're quite powerful motivators.
Click to expand...

^

What he said.


----------



## Jeremy8419

/hits on Delta Thread with a stick multiple times.

Am I just filling in for a whole lot of Deltas or something? Because it's been barren for ages as far as Deltas go on here.


----------



## SheWolf

@Verity

Yeah, I could see that. It's just something hard for me to do I suppose. I do really need to try it again. A lot of my practices call for some sort of meditation. The only thing so far I've been able to focus on is something with my sense. As in, I may take a deep breath of sage and focus on the smell. But even that is a bit difficult. But it's the closest I've gotten to. Perhaps my mind is TOO sharp. Too connected to the world.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Fyi, everytime someone changes their avatar, it confuses the **** out of me. It's like you change your face.


----------



## Verity

@The_Wanderer @ShieldMaiden Just to clarify, I don't mean that escaping a sense of fear and worry would be the point as much as seeing them in a different perspective by experiencing a moment where they do not exist.

I don't believe anyone can "conquer" fear, but I think you can use it to navigate towards what is meaningful. For example, if I experience fear of failure and self-doubt when taking a new risky project on, that's an indicator that _maybe_ I should go ahead with it. 



Jeremy8419 said:


> As far as I have figured out, with Mental being Conscious, Vital being Preconscious, then Demonstrative should be gateway to the Unconscious; e.g., sleep.
> 
> So Ni Demonstrative compared to Ni Leading?


Vital is Unconscious in Model A afaik


----------



## SheWolf

Verity said:


> I don't believe anyone can "conquer" fear, but I think you can use it to navigate towards what is meaningful. For example, if I experience fear of failure and self-doubt when taking a new risky project on, that's an indicator that _maybe_ I should go ahead with it.


Bingo. Sometimes, you have to take risks.

A saying I live by is that courage isn't not being afraid, it's doing it even though you're terrified


----------



## Verity

ShieldMaiden said:


> Bingo. Sometimes, you have to take risks.
> 
> A saying I live by is that courage isn't not being afraid, it's doing it even though you're terrified


In the words of the _sublime poet and extraordinary novelist George Raymond Richard Martin_: 
"Bran: 'Can a man still be brave if he's afraid?'
Ned: 'That is the only time a man can be brave.'"


Seriously though, sometimes there's courage in doing something that is not necessarily scary, but merely inconvenient and messy.
But one could argue that fear is still in play, so I digress.


----------



## SheWolf

Verity said:


> In the words of the _sublime poet and extraordinary novelist George Raymond Richard Martin_:
> "Bran: 'Can a man still be brave if he's afraid?'
> Ned: 'That is the only time a man can be brave.'"
> 
> 
> Seriously though, sometimes there's courage in doing something that is not necessarily scary, but merely inconvenient and messy.
> But one could argue that fear is still in play, so I digress.


Definitely writing that quote down in the books. 

Being brave is a choice, not a trait one is born with. Sure, some are more daring, but even then they're still making a choice.

Fear is such a raw and yet mysterious thing. It's been quite the influence in my life.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> @The_Wanderer @ShieldMaiden Just to clarify, I don't mean that escaping a sense of fear and worry would be the point as much as seeing them in a different perspective by experiencing a moment where they do not exist.
> 
> I don't believe anyone can "conquer" fear, but I think you can use it to navigate towards what is meaningful. For example, if I experience fear of failure and self-doubt when taking a new risky project on, that's an indicator that _maybe_ I should go ahead with it.
> 
> 
> 
> Vital is Unconscious in Model A afaik


Oh, sorry. System structure of the psyche | School of System Socionics

"Some socionists suppose that the functioning of the superblock of personal life is unconscious. It is incorrect. Founders of psychoanalysis differently considered the concept of the "unconscious". The term "preconscious" is appropriate to the content of processes, which take place in the superblock of personal life. In normal conditions, the preconscious processes function out of consciousness, automatically. But these processes can become conscious, if there is a need. In turn, functioning of the superblock of social life is obviously conscious."

In my own language, I can track it, but yours may be different. What's your element version of "going to sleep?"


----------



## Max

@Jeremy8419

What was the egg-sact reason you hoodlums closed the Beta section down? xD


----------



## Jeremy8419

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> @Jeremy8419
> 
> What was the egg-sact reason you hoodlums closed the Beta section down? xD


Oh, sorry. Someone needs some perfect eggs, so I'm trying to whip up the right batch. It's nothing personal. I just want them to know how much effort I put into trying to perfect my technique. Maybe one day I'll get these dang eggs right lol.


----------



## Verity

Jeremy8419 said:


> Oh, sorry. System structure of the psyche | School of System Socionics
> 
> "Some socionists suppose that the functioning of the superblock of personal life is unconscious. It is incorrect. Founders of psychoanalysis differently considered the concept of the "unconscious". The term "preconscious" is appropriate to the content of processes, which take place in the superblock of personal life. In normal conditions, the preconscious processes function out of consciousness, automatically. But these processes can become conscious, if there is a need. In turn, functioning of the superblock of social life is obviously conscious."
> 
> In my own language, I can track it, but yours may be different. What's your element version of "going to sleep?"


Not sure if they're using "unconscious processes" in the same sense that a dream is defined as an unconscious process. I get that you're partly extrapolating, but are you sure they are talking about the same thing? I'm finding nothing.

If you're asking what element seems more pronounced in my dreams, they're usually pretty intense, heavily "sensory" as in alot of physical things happening without break. As well as nearly always involving representations of people I care about. I usually have a strong sense of self and feel separated from them. So the IE of my dreams would be more in line with my suggestive Se and a twisted form of mobilizing Fi if I'd try to look at them like a movie. I don't see much Ti, I'm afraid.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> Not sure if they're using "unconscious processes" in the same sense that a dream is defined as an unconscious process. I get that you're partly extrapolating, but are you sure they are talking about the same thing? I'm finding nothing.
> 
> If you're asking what element seems more pronounced in my dreams, they're usually pretty intense, heavily "sensory" as in alot of physical things happening without break. As well as nearly always involving representations of people I care about. I usually have a strong sense of self and feel separated from them. So the IE of my dreams would be more in line with my suggestive Se and a twisted form of mobilizing Fi if I'd try to look at them like a movie. I don't see much Ti, I'm afraid.


Oh, my bad. I should have clarified better. I meant "the act of going to sleep." What you originally described and I quoted was my "act of going to sleep," not the actual sleep. Thanks for the help, by the way.


----------



## Verity

Jeremy8419 said:


> Oh, my bad. I should have clarified better. I meant "the act of going to sleep." What you originally described and I quoted was my "act of going to sleep," not the actual sleep. Thanks for the help, by the way.


Ok. You're asking what element I'd say I'm using right before falling asleep. I'd say Si, since I become very aware of the warmth of the blanket and the pleasant feelings caused by my dopamine levels rising, while I'm completely letting go of the external world. I do feel connected to my immediate surroundings though, but that's hardly Ni or Ti.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> Ok. You're asking what element I'd say I'm using right before falling asleep. I'd say Si, since I become very aware of the warmth of the blanket and the pleasant feelings caused by my dopamine levels rising, while I'm completely letting go of the external world. I do feel connected to my immediate surroundings though, but that's hardly Ni or Ti.


That makes sense. Thank you.


----------



## Verity

Jeremy8419 said:


> That makes sense. Thank you.


To clarify, I do experience the constant feeling of my mind wandering like it always does, making constant associations between things that only makes sense to me, so in that sense I still experience everything as being connected by my associations, but I also become way more aware of the aforementioned things. I do not feel connected to the *real* world other than my immediate surroundings. Which is what loss of self-consciousness does(That's also why I find the prospect of it thrilling; it supposedly makes you experience the _now_).


----------



## The_Wanderer

Verity said:


> I don't believe anyone can "conquer" fear, but I think you can use it to navigate towards what is meaningful. For example, if I experience fear of failure and self-doubt when taking a new risky project on, that's an indicator that _maybe_ I should go ahead with it.


My sentiments exactly.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> Oh, my bad. I should have clarified better. I meant "the act of going to sleep." What you originally described and I quoted was my "act of going to sleep," not the actual sleep.


It would be interesting to hear about more people's "going to sleep processes". In my own case, I usually only go to sleep if I'm already quite tired, or absolutely _must_ for some event the next day. When I'm actually laying there winding down is usually the only time that I'm in a self-reflective state; the only other time it appears is when some people manage to draw it out.


----------



## Max

Jeremy8419 said:


> Oh, sorry. Someone needs some perfect eggs, so I'm trying to whip up the right batch. It's nothing personal. I just want them to know how much effort I put into trying to perfect my technique. Maybe one day I'll get these dang eggs right lol.


Or you can just do what the Finns do, and scramble them in a coffee machine haha.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> To clarify, I do experience the constant feeling of my Smind wandering like it always does, making constant associations between things that only makes sense to me, so in that sense I still experience everything as being connected by my associations, but I also become way more aware of the aforementioned things. I do not feel connected to the *real* world other than my immediate surroundings. Which is what loss of self-consciousness does(That's also why I find the prospect of it thrilling; it supposedly makes you experience the _now_).


Sounds about right. Just in a different language.

My mind crosses space and time in many ways, but only as necessary to translate for others so I can give them the right "now." Gives me headaches sometimes when I accidentally go too far lol


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Hitchens a Gamma? Really miss that guy. You need to get rough with certain people. You gotta take them down hard. Bernie Sanders is a fraud. He will bow if Hillary wins the nomination. He is the controlled opposition. He will fall back and tow the party line. He "respects" Hillary Clinton. Why? Hillary Clinton does not deserve respect. She is an evil person and needs to be mocked. 

Guy cracks me up. "Hillary is running on therapeutic reasons." Damn straight. She stood by her man and now she thinks she is owed the Presidency. Love the smug.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> It would be interesting to hear about more people's "going to sleep processes". In my own case, I usually only go to sleep if I'm already quite tired, or absolutely _must_ for some event the next day. When I'm actually laying there winding down is usually the only time that I'm in a self-reflective state; the only other time it appears is when some people manage to draw it out.


Nature will konk me out faster than anything else. Put me in a nice spot in the shade, with a bit of wind, problems melt away, and I fall in synch, and zzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Jeremy8419

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Or you can just do what the Finns do, and scramble them in a coffee machine haha.


What in the world LOL people sure come up with some stuff lol


----------



## Max

Jeremy8419 said:


> What in the world LOL people sure come up with some stuff lol


If it works, it works. xD


----------



## SheWolf

Uhhhh.....


----------



## Jeremy8419

*shrug* lol


----------



## karmachameleon

Why isn't the beta thread unlocked yet? >.< anyways, i had an apocalyptic dream, it was scary af and vivid but kind of cool. was exhausted after it. i could probably write movies off my dreams. they feel like movies


----------



## soseductive

ShieldMaiden said:


> You're definitely right. Though, not much I can do when I'm down for the count like this. Most of my hobbies are active ones.


Then you need to find someone who will take a role of "clown" for you)


----------



## SheWolf

karmachameleon said:


> Why isn't the beta thread unlocked yet? >.< anyways, i had an apocalyptic dream, it was scary af and vivid but kind of cool. was exhausted after it. i could probably write movies off my dreams. they feel like movies


I've had those.

My dreams could be made into some twisted horror movies. I have no idea how I manage to conjure up such things in my head.


----------



## SheWolf

Beta is unlocked.


----------



## SheWolf

So, I've changed my type to ESE. I might be one? Just one that's unusual and defies stereotypes. May be due to Enneagram. I don't know.

Like for example, most people describe me as having a cold exterior (my sister says I come off as an Ice Queen), I'm not goofy and actually take things quite seriously, I'm not mothering... at all, I'm more prone to melancholy than being naturally Merry, I hate parties/customer service/caregiving, and in general just keep to myself. I don't know. I probably need to learn some more. I don't the the caregiver romance style fits me well at all, but eh. Whatever.


----------



## karmachameleon

ShieldMaiden said:


> So, I've changed my type to ESE. I might be one? Just one that's unusual and defies stereotypes. May be due to Enneagram. I don't know.
> 
> Like for example, most people describe me as having a cold exterior (my sister says I come off as an Ice Queen), I'm not goofy and actually take things quite seriously, I'm not mothering... at all, I'm more prone to melancholy than being naturally Merry, I hate parties/customer service/caregiving, and in general just keep to myself. I don't know. I probably need to learn some more. I don't the the caregiver romance style fits me well at all, but eh. Whatever.


do you think alpha SF fits you more than delta NF?
oh and how do you defy the stereotypes of ESE?
i think you have a delta NF vibe


----------



## Verity

ShieldMaiden said:


> So, I've changed my type to ESE. I think I might be one. Just one that's unusual and defies stereotypes. May be due to Enneagram. I don't know.
> 
> Like for example, most people describe me as having a cold exterior (my sister says I come off as an Ice Queen), I'm not goofy and actually take things quite seriously, I'm not mothering... at all, I'm more prone to melancholy than being naturally Merry, I hate parties/customer service/caregiving, and in general just keep to myself. I don't know. I probably need to learn some more. I don't the the caregiver romance style fits me well at all, but eh. Whatever.


If you don't mind, why ESE?

Even your writing seems very Fi-centric


----------



## Jeremy8419

That's a mirror of SEE over the X/Y axis. Have you considered the mirror over the Y axis: ESI?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Verity said:


> If you don't mind, why ESE?
> 
> Even your writing seems very Fi-centric



Seems serious and not Fe to me too.


----------



## karmachameleon

we havent seen her interact (in person/video) so we wouldn't know really, would we?

THAT SAID i vote delta nf


----------



## karmachameleon

been trying to download this game for 2 DAYS. yesterday it worked, then i quit it. then i started it and it said some .dll files were missing. couldnt fix it. i reset my whole computer because theres some other games that are not working. now i downloaded the game again. but the actual .exe file is MISSING!!! what the fuck


----------



## SheWolf

karmachameleon said:


> been trying to download this game for 2 DAYS. yesterday it worked, then i quit it. then i started it and it said some .dll files were missing. couldnt fix it. i reset my whole computer because theres some other games that are not working. now i downloaded the game again. but the actual .exe file is MISSING!!! what the fuck


Where'd you get the game from? I may or may not be able to help since I'm low-key a gaming nerd and have somehow fixed a number of errors.

P.S. I will reply to everyone's questions about my type in a while. Don't forget me! I have to run some errands with my mom and sister (Goddess help me)

But, there are some others here that are hell-bent on believing I am ESE. Some swear I'm a Se/Fi ego. @myst91 thinks I'm ESI-Se.


----------



## SheWolf

karmachameleon said:


> we havent seen her interact (in person/video) so we wouldn't know really, would we?
> 
> THAT SAID i vote delta nf


Hmmm. I don't know. Jeremy is EII and his reasoning eludes me a lot of the time. Wouldn't be opposed to it though.


----------



## karmachameleon

ShieldMaiden said:


> Where'd you get the game from? I may or may not be able to help since I'm low-key a gaming nerd and have somehow fixed a number of errors.
> 
> P.S. I will reply to everyone's questions about my type in a while. Don't forget me! I have to run some errands with my mom and sister (Goddess help me)
> 
> But, there are some others here that are hell-bent on believing I am ESE. Some swear I'm a Se/Fi ego. @myst91 thinks I'm ESI-Se.


piratebay, and nvm i fixed it. forget what others say, how do you relate to Se ego?



> Hmmm. I don't know. Jeremy is EII and his reasoning eludes me a lot of the time. Wouldn't be opposed to it though.


Yeah thats not a good way to type yourself because others can be mistyped, lol.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

ShieldMaiden said:


> But, there are some others here that are hell-bent on believing I am ESE. Some swear I'm a Se/Fi ego. @_myst91_ thinks I'm ESI-Se.


Dunno, but I've noticed that some of them may type you as ESE because you don't fit their framework or are butthurt, so they label you as some type that they hate. Being honest, I have an easier time seeing you as Gamma SF than Alpha SF. The second bunch makes me want to either scratch my head or run away.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ShieldMaiden said:


> Where'd you get the game from? I may or may not be able to help since I'm low-key a gaming nerd and have somehow fixed a number of errors.
> 
> P.S. I will reply to everyone's questions about my type in a while. Don't forget me! I have to run some errands with my mom and sister (Goddess help me)
> 
> But, there are some others here that are hell-bent on believing I am ESE. Some swear I'm a Se/Fi ego. @_myst91_ thinks I'm ESI-Se.



Myst may be onto something. 

I would go with Fi dom and probably more Ne. Delta NF is closer than ESE. Somebody said you come to Ti doms for advice or something. I think you come to low key people perhaps. People who are more serious and unassuming.


----------



## SheWolf

karmachameleon said:


> Yeah thats not a good way to type yourself because others can be mistyped, lol.


Everyone I've talked to is pretty confident he's EII as well as himself. I see he uses a lot of Ne. He talks about possibilities and different perspectives an awful lot. But, then again, who _is_ truly typed correctly? Until we are able to see a person's cognitive functions through something like a brain scan, who knows for _absolute_?



karmachameleon said:


> do you think alpha SF fits you more than delta NF?
> oh and how do you defy the stereotypes of ESE?
> i think you have a delta NF vibe


I don't think, by most descriptions I've read, that Alpha SF suits me.

Let's see... more ESE stereotypes I defy...

- I don't gossip. Gossip is boring to me. I zone out when people start to gossip.
- I DO have very strong moral opinions. I've heard it's a stereotype among both MBTI and Socionics that Fe-valuers don't have opinions. Which I disagree with anyway.

I can't think of more now. Personally, I think I do value Se in away. But then I think... is this Se or is it my SX variant? Though, I'm very aware of my territory and defensive/possessive of it, a trait that Gamma SF's have. I have examples, but I'm about to leave soon so I can't write them out at the moment.



Verity said:


> If you don't mind, why ESE?
> 
> Even your writing seems very Fi-centric


Well... apparently to some I show an a lot of Fe. Namely in questionnaires, but I'm starting to believe those aren't always totally accurate. I think you have to notice how people talk personally in their natural states over a period of time. Then, I notice, I'm pretty emotionally sensitive. I don't care for conflict, but will initiate it when necessary. In my personal opinion, I find myself Fi-valuing and those who have talked to me personally see that as well. BUT, I have social anxiety. And I know that emotions =/= a certain type because every mentally healthy human being has emotions, though It's all about how you handle them.


----------



## SheWolf

Mordred Phantom said:


> Dunno, but I've noticed that some of them may type you as ESE because you don't fit their framework or are butthurt, so they label you as some type that they hate. Being honest, I have an easier time seeing you as Gamma SF than Alpha SF. The second bunch makes me want to either scratch my head or run away.


Haha. Perhaps. I get along with you pretty well, and you're ILI. I've not interacted enough I don't think with Alphas to know how I feel about them. I am more drawn to people who are more serious-inclined.



FearAndTrembling said:


> Myst may be onto something.
> 
> I would go with Fi dom and probably more Ne. Delta NF is closer than ESE. Somebody said you come to Ti doms for advice or something. I think you come to low key people perhaps. People who are more serious and unassuming.


The problem with that is when I go to these Ti users they end up confusing me even more. Socionics is a Ti-heavy system. Could be why I suck at understanding it. The only true Te user Socionics-wise I'm aware of is the moderator Figure. Actually, he explained something to me in another thread about Romance Styles and for once, what was said was clear as a bell to me.


----------



## karmachameleon

@ShieldMaiden

I'm also confused with Fi and Fe because besides Fe being expressive and being able to change moods in others and Fi is morals etc, theres a lot of overlapping in the two like being able to tell others and your own emotions. And an Fe creative is also good at Fi and vice versa for Fi creatives badsdaklm so confusing.


----------



## Jeremy8419

ShieldMaiden said:


> Hmmm. I don't know. Jeremy is EII and his reasoning eludes me a lot of the time. Wouldn't be opposed to it though.


Because it's not my reasoning most of the time lol.


----------



## Entropic

@ShieldMaiden I do want to point out that before you changed username everyone thought you were an Fe type; I retain that you are one as well, and you do _not_ supposedly "ooze" Fi or whatever; you still ooze Fe.

Being of the serious quadra has nothing to do with being a serious person.


----------



## SheWolf

Entropic said:


> @_ShieldMaiden_ I do want to point out that before you changed username everyone thought you were an Fe type; I retain that you are one as well, and you do _not_ supposedly "ooze" Fi or whatever; you still ooze Fe.
> 
> Being of the serious quadra has nothing to do with being a serious person.


Ok.


----------



## Verity

ShieldMaiden said:


> Oh? Interesting. Note, most of this sort of interaction was done over text. When I'd be sarcastic, his responses would either be changing the subject completely or just "Lol."
> 
> .... and everyone knows that "Lol" is just short for I don't care or stop talking about it.
> 
> I was more pissed than anything when he said it. Him and I often have arguments because he says sometimes it seems like I'm being judgmental towards him or that I'm looking down on him. He's not the first friend to tell me this, either.


Really? I thought "lol" could be used to express light amusement. 
But anyway, why did you continue if you knew it was bothering him? 
Were you annoyed because he didn't find it funny or because he didn't explicitly state that it was bothering him?

And you didn't answer my question, "why wouldn't you put your faith in a questionnaire? They provide facts concerning dimensionality that people can work with."



Entropic said:


> ShieldMaiden I do want to point out that before you changed username everyone thought you were an Fe type; I retain that you are one as well, and you do _not_ supposedly "ooze" Fi or whatever; you still ooze Fe.
> 
> Being of the serious quadra has nothing to do with being a serious person.


Have I missed something? She said nearly everyone thinks she's Gamma SF.

Edit: Ok, nevermind, I found the thread.


----------



## SheWolf

Verity said:


> Really? I thought "lol" could be used to express light amusement.
> But anyway, why did you continue if you knew it was bothering him?
> Were you annoyed because he didn't find it funny or because he didn't explicitly state that it was bothering him?


I didn't know for sure if it was bothering him. I kind of thought it was my social anxiety coming on, as in it leads me to think that everything I say to someone is "wrong." 

If you get to the core of it, and I'll be honest, I was far more angry at myself than I was at him. I actually probably would've reached around and kicked my own ass if I could. I hurt/upset him. Sure, I like it when I can tease someone playfully, but I never want to hurt anyone's feelings or disrespect them in such a way. Ever. The reason why it was a turn-off was out of fear that I may hurt him again. That was what I meant by walking on eggshells. Actually, it's kind of funny because a couple days later he totally forgot about it. I took it more seriously than he did, which is no surprise.



Verity said:


> And you didn't answer my question, "why wouldn't you put your faith in a questionnaire? They provide facts concerning dimensionality that people can work with."


Oh, I definitely don't think they are absolutely useless. I think they can most certainly help others narrow down your type. But I see it in many questionnaires there is some ambiguity or missing links and it leads people to debate a couple different types.


----------



## SheWolf

I honestly don't know how much disorders like social anxiety may effect typing, because in a way it does skew a person's natural behavior. My college just had an open house seminar that I went to and spoke to a counselor/therapist and it affects quite a bit more than what I assumed it.


----------



## Verity

ShieldMaiden said:


> I didn't know for sure if it was bothering him. I kind of thought it was my social anxiety coming on, as in it leads me to think that everything I say to someone is "wrong."
> 
> If you get to the core of it, and I'll be honest, I was far more angry at myself than I was at him. I actually probably would've reached around and kicked my own ass if I could. I hurt/upset him. Sure, I like it when I can tease someone playfully, but I never want to hurt anyone's feelings or disrespect them in such a way. Ever. The reason why it was a turn-off was out of fear that I may hurt him again. That was what I meant by walking on eggshells. Actually, it's kind of funny because a couple days later he totally forgot about it. I took it more seriously than he did, which is no surprise.


Ok, this is unfortunately not type-related.



> Oh, I definitely don't think they are absolutely useless. I think they can most certainly help others narrow down your type. But I see it in many questionnaires there is some ambiguity or missing links and it leads people to debate a couple different types.


Obviously. The answers to a questionnaire provide facts, but ultimately you will always have to decide what understanding of the answers aligns best with what is described by the system.


Do you still want my evaluation of your type when I've taken your original questionnaires in consideration?


----------



## Vermillion

ShieldMaiden said:


> I honestly don't know how much disorders like social anxiety may effect typing, because in a way it does skew a person's natural behavior. My college just had an open house seminar that I went to and spoke to a counselor/therapist and it affects quite a bit more than what I assumed it.


*shrug* I have a ton of social anxiety. It's not necessarily visible or openly awkward, but manifests itself as a huge reluctance to even involve myself in social situations, and not knowing what to say to people. So I'm not gregarious or enterprising. I barely talk.

It affects a lot of things in my life behaviorally, but not what functions I value. I can see why someone would think ESI for me, for instance, but I'd like to see anyone try and dispute me being a gamma. 

So personally I don't think it does much in the way of changing what functions you value and display.


----------



## SheWolf

Verity said:


> Ok, this is unfortunately not type-related.


Yep. Was a bit worried about that.



Verity said:


> Obviously. The answers to a questionnaire provide facts, but ultimately you will always have to decide what understanding of the answers aligns best with what is described by the system.
> 
> 
> Do you still want my evaluation of your type when I've taken your original questionnaires in consideration?


Only if you'd like to, especially since I did not intend to drag you into typing me. If you decide to, PM it to me. It's easier and that way we don't derail from other's conversations or get lost.


----------



## Verity

ShieldMaiden said:


> I honestly don't know how much disorders like social anxiety may effect typing, because in a way it does skew a person's natural behavior. My college just had an open house seminar that I went to and spoke to a counselor/therapist and it affects quite a bit more than what I assumed it.


As someone with experience of people with mental disorders(I'm diagnosed with two myself) I really doubt social anxiety would ever change anyone's personality in the sense of the dimensionality of IEs.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

ShieldMaiden said:


> Exactly. I love that playfulness because it is absolutely delicious. I love it especially if I was allowed to "win." Is that the "power games" that they are talking about in the romance style descriptions?
> 
> YES. Exactly. A sense of power being played with; the Aggressor wants to win, the Victim wants the Aggressor to "earn" the win. The Victim is kinda like those women in the movies that fight the strong man at first and then give in once he has shown how powerful he is, or the ones that punch as they are being kissed and flail around but then give in to it. The Aggressor is the one that wants to be like the men in those movies, and the Victim wants to be seen as strong but then give in to someone that has proven themselves. It is this dynamic that is Se and Ni in relationships.





ShieldMaiden said:


> And LOL. If you poke/tickle/push me in any way you better run because I'mma get you.


Honestly...I flushed a bit when I read that. Go gurl, you got game. ^^



ShieldMaiden said:


> The guy from above would do things like that to get a rise out of me. Like when I was a church goer (gah) he would reach down and try to untie my shoelaces and I would give him a sharp kick in the ankle. Or he'd try to reach into my purse and steal some gum and I would slap his hand (not lightly, either.)
> He'd try to take my phone and hide it in his pockets and a play fight would ensue. Eventually we were actually told by some people that we needed to settle down because we were being disruptive. Lol. I was only maybe 14 or 15 at the time. We could be pretty immature.


Yeah, that sounds like he was a Victim type. He wanted you to win, but he also wanted to test your boundaries. Or a least that is how it sounds.


----------



## SheWolf

Verity said:


> As someone with experience of people with mental disorders(I'm diagnosed with two myself) I really doubt social anxiety would ever change anyone's personality in the sense of the dimensionality of IEs.


Yeah, perhaps. It won't change a person's personality or how they process information, but it's really unfortunate that it does cloud some of what I want to do and my confidence in some areas.


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> _YES. Exactly. A sense of power being played with; the Aggressor wants to win, the Victim wants the Aggressor to "earn" the win. The Victim is kinda like those women in the movies that fight the strong man at first and then give in once he has shown how powerful he is, or the ones that punch as they are being kissed and flail around but then give in to it. The Aggressor is the one that wants to be like the men in those movies, and the Victim wants to be seen as strong but then give in to someone that has proven themselves. It is this dynamic that is Se and Ni in relationships.
> _


Interesting. Unrelated, but the femme fatales in fiction have always been my favorites. Catwoman is 10/10 my favorite female DC character.



Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Honestly...I flushed a bit when I read that. Go gurl, you got game. ^^


;-)




Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Yeah, that sounds like he was a Victim type. He wanted you to win, but he also wanted to test your boundaries. Or a least that is how it sounds.


He sure liked getting his ass kicked by me.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Night Huntress said:


> *shrug* I have a ton of social anxiety. It's not necessarily visible or openly awkward, but manifests itself as a huge reluctance to even involve myself in social situations, and not knowing what to say to people. So I'm not gregarious or enterprising. I barely talk.
> 
> It affects a lot of things in my life behaviorally, but not what functions I value. I can see why someone would think ESI for me, for instance, but I'd like to see anyone try and dispute me being a gamma.
> 
> So personally I don't think it does much in the way of changing what functions you value and display.


*jeeves voice* Well cleeeeearly, you are an Alpha Intuitive. *droll laughter*


----------



## Immolate

ShieldMaiden said:


> Yeah, perhaps. It won't change a person's personality or how they process information, but it's really unfortunate that it does cloud some of what I want to do and my confidence in some areas.


It's going to affect your behavior and your willingness to engage in certain aspects of life, perhaps make you think you fit a certain skin when it's actually quite alien. I think one of the issues here is self-perception, and I encourage you to explore the theory some more before settling into any one space or frame of mind.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Well, let's see. Information elements do not exist as far as medicine/psychiatry are concerned. So to say anything about their relationship is talking nonsense. lol. 

I mean, can you imagine talking to a neurologist and asking him if this affects your Se. He would say you have no clue how the human mind works. He would think you are a scientologist or something.


----------



## Vermillion

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> *jeeves voice* Well cleeeeearly, you are an Alpha Intuitive. *droll laughter*


*CUE HUGE GASP OF SHOCK* How dare you accuse me of being one of.... _them?!??!
_
oh no... I can feel myself transforming...


----------



## Immolate

FearAndTrembling said:


> Well, let's see. Information elements do not exist as far as medicine/psychiatry are concerned. So to say anything about their relationship is talking nonsense. lol.
> 
> I mean, can you imagine talking to a neurologist and asking him if this affects your Se. He would say you have no clue how the human mind works. He would think you are a scientologist or something.


That's why we congregate and have our moments in forums.

More seriously, though, poor mental health can mask who you are. Sometimes you have to wade through the mess to reconnect with yourself.


----------



## SheWolf

lets mosey said:


> It's going to affect your behavior and *your willingness to engage in certain aspects of life*, *perhaps make you think you fit a certain skin when it's actually quite alien*. I think one of the issues here is self-perception, and I encourage you to explore the theory some more before settling into any one space or frame of mind.


Bolded is absolutely true. If you're talking about personality theory, that's why I'm here, to learn and explore. Socionics has, for whatever reason, been something that doesn't click too easily with me.


----------



## SheWolf

@Fenix Wulfheart

Stumbled across this glorious image on my Facebook feed. I thought you'd appreciate it's splendor as much as I did.

_pssstt, it's filesize is small enough you could probably use it for an avatar if you wanted to_


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Night Huntress said:


> *CUE HUGE GASP OF SHOCK* How dare you accuse me of being one of.... _them?!??!
> _
> oh no... I can feel myself transforming...


All according to my master plan. ^^



ShieldMaiden said:


> @Fenix Wulfheart
> Stumbled across this glorious image on my Facebook feed. I thought you'd appreciate it's splendor as much as I did.
> _pssstt, it's filesize is small enough you could probably use it for an avatar if you wanted to_


That is one of the most beautiful things I have seen...definitely doing it. I mean, its not like I adore wolves or anything.


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> That is one of the most beautiful things I have seen...definitely doing it. I mean, its not like I adore wolves or anything.


_Senpai used my avatar..._

I'VE BEEN **NOTICED**

Legit, though, it's the perfect avatar for you. 


I adore wolves too. I always have since I was little.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

ShieldMaiden said:


> _Senpai used my avatar..._
> 
> I'VE BEEN **NOTICED**
> 
> Legit, though, it's the perfect avatar for you.
> 
> 
> I adore wolves too. I always have since I was little.


*blinks*
You...k...that's kind of an adorable reaction O_O

Mmm. I think Fe valuers in general like wolves. Not sure about Fi types, though.


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> *blinks*
> You...k...that's kind of an adorable reaction O_O


I'm not adorable.

i'll mess u up m8. XP

Haha.



Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Mmm. I think Fe valuers in general like wolves. Not sure about Fi types, though.


Wolves seem like a very Beta thing to me.

But I also really love cats and horses... or... animals in general. My favorites though are wolves, cats, horses, foxes, ravens/crows, owls, and lizards.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

ShieldMaiden said:


> I'm not adorable.
> i'll mess u up m8. XP
> Haha.
> 
> 
> Wolves seem like a very Beta thing to me.
> 
> But I also really love cats and horses... or... animals in general. My favorites though are wolves, cats, horses, foxes, ravens/crows, owls, and lizards.


You just listed ALL of my fav animals. O_O
(but not cats or lizards; I only like big cats, like lions or panthers)


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> You just listed ALL of my fav animals. O_O
> (but not cats or lizards; I only like big cats, like lions or panthers)


I've always been a huge animal lover. My whole family is, really, but especially my closest sister and I.

I'm literally the person that would get invited to a party and hang out with the dog or cat the whole time.
Animals are much more pleasant company than people most of the time.


----------



## soseductive

karmachameleon said:


> How do one use Fi when speaking


I think you should ask yourself how do you do it 



ShieldMaiden said:


> Okay, guys, I'm home now so I'll elaborate a bit more on my relationships.
> @_Fenix Wulfheart_ @_Verity_ @_soseductive _
> 
> I'll start off by elaborating more on the second relationship I mentioned above...
> 
> We were very playful with one another. For example, we would get into play-fights. Some of them were pretty rough too. I pushed him into some chairs once (Lmao) and he threw a dodgeball right at my head. Never any hard feelings, in fact, it was pretty fun. His mom and my sister would always say that one day we were going to kill each other with our shenanigans. We were always spewing heavily sarcastic (sometimes even leaning on being _biting_) insults at one another. Once again, with no hard feelings.
> However, on a personal level it seemed like we had nothing to offer each other, which is ultimately why we never dated.
> 
> I have another example as well, and I don't know why I didn't think of it sooner because it's recent. There's one guy that I consider a friend now, but before you could say we were quite attracted to each other. We would kinda flirt in the same way, a bit aggressive, but it turned sour sharply when I believe I overstepped my bounds with him. I would sarcastically insult him. In a way, I could always tell that he didn't appreciate it and I wasn't getting the responses I wanted out of him usually either. One time he told me very sternly that he wasn't amused and that I needed to stop. This was just a major turn-off for me. Now I feel like I have to walk on eggshells around him or he's gonna get offended. And we're just so different, from our worldviews to senses of humor. I think he's an IEE maybe. Not sure.
> 
> Which brings me to another point...
> 
> If you're a sensitive Sally, don't let me get comfortable with you. When I like you, I'm sarcastic and will make fun of you (in a loving way, of course. *ahem*)
> 
> When I like you, I'm going to be sarcastic and rough with you and I look for you to play that game back with me or at least not be offended/shrug it off. Though I'd much prefer the former as it makes me think that you reciprocate, are cool, and want to engage me.


I actually can relate to it. I had a friend with which we always insulted each other and tried to come up with a theory why the other one is a biggest ****** xD It was so much fun)



Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I SEE some hints of Si as well, but as the SEE has strong unconscious Si that makes sense.


ESI has strong unconscious Si, SEE has strong unconscious Fe.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Hehe nice! Just means you have the ability to spread your affection around to more individuals ^^


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

soseductive said:


> ESI has strong unconscious Si, SEE has strong unconscious Fe.


SEE has strong unconscious Si as well.

4D: Se, Fe
3D: Fi, *Si*


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Hehe nice! Just means you have the ability to spread your affection around to more individuals ^^


Talking to me? Lol.

I prefer to spread my affection to animals. My mother often reprimands me because I literally can't find it in me to be as affectionate with my baby niece as I am my dog and cat.

Could also be because I don't like kids.


----------



## soseductive

ShieldMaiden said:


> Oh? Interesting. Note, most of this sort of interaction was done over text. When I'd be sarcastic, his responses would either be changing the subject completely or just "Lol."
> 
> .... and everyone knows that "Lol" is just short for I don't care or stop talking about it.
> 
> I was more pissed than anything when he said it. Him and I often have arguments because he says sometimes it seems like I'm being judgmental towards him or that I'm looking down on him. He's not the first friend to tell me this, either.


Hmm.. my friends never told me that, even if they didn't like something. If they had problems with me, then they always asked their friends or parents to help them. 



Fenix Wulfheart said:


> SEE has strong unconscious Si as well.
> 
> 4D: Se, Fe
> 3D: Fi, *Si*


I have ignoring Fe and i think Fe is a trash. I am pretty sure SxEs have pretty similar opinion about Si. That's why they tend to overworks themselves.


----------



## soseductive

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> You just listed ALL of my fav animals. O_O
> (but not cats or lizards; I only like big cats, like lions or panthers)


So, you like big pussies. huh, weird. I prefer them small and tight


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

soseductive said:


> I have ignoring Fe and i think Fe is a trash. I am pretty sure SxEs have pretty similar opinion about Si. That's why they tend to overworks themselves.


Truth - but I didn't say what kind of Si I was seeing


----------



## SheWolf

soseductive said:


> So, you like big pussies. huh, weird. I prefer them small and tight


I think I've said it once, so I'll say it again...

Ya'll are nasty.


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Truth - but I didn't say what kind of Si I was seeing


I'm lost-


----------



## soseductive

ShieldMaiden said:


> I think I've said it once, so I'll say it again...
> 
> Ya'll are nasty.








* *




I actually wonder how person with such a high moral standarts could be this way)


----------



## SheWolf

soseductive said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually wonder how person with such a high moral standarts could be this way)


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Erm...I don't really care to discuss what pussies I like...yikes.


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Erm...I don't really care to discuss what pussies I like...yikes.


Agreed. Awkward conversation topic. Pass.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Particularly don't want to discuss it in public with strangers around. -_-

So anyway, I read the Clan of the Cave Bear series again recently. Fantastic books. Reasonable historical accuracy as well, for a fiction book. Have any of y'all read it? (Author - Jean M. Auel is the spelling IIRC)


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Particularly don't want to discuss it in public with strangers around. -_-
> 
> So anyway, I read the Clan of the Cave Bear series again recently. Fantastic books. Reasonable historical accuracy as well, for a fiction book. Have any of y'all read it? (Author - Jean M. Auel is the spelling IIRC)


I haven't, but I Googled it.

I'm more of a fantasy reader myself. Always have been.


----------



## soseductive

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Erm...I don't really care to discuss what pussies I like...yikes.


Hey! You started it, not me)


----------



## Entropic

ShieldMaiden said:


> Bolded is absolutely true. If you're talking about personality theory, that's why I'm here, to learn and explore. Socionics has, for whatever reason, been something that doesn't click too easily with me.


This entire sentence is Fe ego, fyi.


----------



## soseductive

Guys, wanna hear my opinion about this?)


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Entropic said:


> This entire sentence is Fe ego, fyi.


Would you care to break down how? You must be pretty damn good if you can spot a function in one sentence. With no justification of course. Let's hear it.

coupled with this post about her type:



> I do want to point out that before you changed username everyone thought you were an Fe type; I retain that you are one as well, and you do _not supposedly "ooze" Fi or whatever; you still ooze Fe.
> 
> Being of the serious quadra has nothing to do with being a serious person._



What have you actually said here? Nothing at all. "You're Fe". lol


----------



## SheWolf

Entropic said:


> This entire sentence is Fe ego, fyi.


I don't care.

Leave me alone.


----------



## SheWolf

soseductive said:


> Hey! You started it, not me)


_You know what you did._


----------



## karmachameleon

soseductive said:


> I think you should ask yourself how do you do it


I devalue Fi a lot though. I don't know why you wont accept this. It's annoying and can be reported.


----------



## karmachameleon

FearAndTrembling said:


> Would you care to break down how? You must be pretty damn good if you can spot a function in one sentence. With no justification of course. Let's hear it.
> 
> coupled with this post about her type:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What have you actually said here? Nothing at all. "You're Fe". lol


Fi is "I like/love/hate/dislike socionics" Fe "socionics is not something I personally enjoy"


----------



## SheWolf

karmachameleon said:


> Fi is "I like/love/hate/dislike socionics" Fe "Fe is not something I personally enjoy"


I think it's probably a little more than that (apparently.) I say I love/hate/dislike/like things all the time.


----------



## karmachameleon

ShieldMaiden said:


> I think it's probably a little more than that (apparently.) I say I love/hate/dislike/like things all the time.


We're talking about what entropic said "this sentence is Fe" im explaining why a sentence is Fe.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

karmachameleon said:


> Fi is "I like/love/hate/dislike socionics" Fe "socionics is not something I personally enjoy"


I disagree with that. If it is true, I am Fi. I am always talking about the things I love but is done in a way to try to perhaps interest others. Affect the mood of the place or contribute to. May also have to do with Se valuing. Beta types seem like the most likely to sit around and talk about stuff they love together. Or how shit is wack. Beta types probably also use the most lively language. Not that Ms Manners shit.


----------



## soseductive

karmachameleon said:


> I devalue Fi a lot though. I don't know why you wont accept this. It's annoying and can be reported.


99% of what you say can be reported, so you better watch what you are saying  Plus, i don't care)



karmachameleon said:


> Fi is "I like/love/hate/dislike socionics" Fe "socionics is not something I personally enjoy"


AHAHAHAAHA xD Even here you fucked up. Both of your sentences are Fi xD



ShieldMaiden said:


> _You know what you did._


Sorry, didn't wanted to hurt anybody.


----------



## SheWolf

soseductive said:


> Sorry, didn't wanted to hurt anybody.


I was just poking fun at you. You didn't hurt anyone.


----------



## SheWolf

karmachameleon said:


> I devalue Fi a lot though. I don't know why you wont accept this. It's annoying and can be reported.


You can put him on ignore.


----------



## soseductive

ShieldMaiden said:


> I was just poking fun at you. You didn't hurt anyone.


I know, but Fenix sounded kind of upset. (in my head)



ShieldMaiden said:


> You can put him on ignore.


She cannot do it, because she loves to argue too much.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Trying to type someone from a mere sentence is quite unprofessional to be honest, as that can't show a general pattern unless you contrast it with other comments from the same person. It can also imply that the phrase was cherrypicked for justifying a preconceived idea of someone, without stopping to think twice if it's just a clue of their type.


----------



## SheWolf

soseductive said:


> I know, but Fenix sounded kind of upset. (in my head)


It's just something that is a bit uncomfortable is all. Lol.


----------



## Vermillion

Mordred Phantom said:


> Trying to type someone from a mere sentence is quite unprofessional to be honest, as that can't show a general pattern unless you contrast it with other comments from the same person. It can also imply that the phrase was cherrypicked for justifying a preconceived idea of someone, without stopping to think twice if it's just a clue of their type.


Perhaps you're not aware, then, that there were extensive and detailed discussions (involving several members of the Socionics/cognitive function communities) about the reasoning behind that typing in several threads in the past. It's ironic you mention "general pattern(s)", as those previous discussions are some facts and contexts you should keep in mind too, before you generalize about the validity of a type-related comment.


----------



## SheWolf

Night Huntress said:


> Perhaps you're not aware, then, that there were extensive and detailed discussions (involving several members of the Socionics/cognitive function communities) about the reasoning behind that typing in several threads in the past. It's ironic you mention "general pattern(s)", as those previous discussions are some facts and contexts you should keep in mind too, before you generalize about the validity of a type-related comment.


There have been extensive discussions against your typing of me, too, in private. I won't go into it.

You have your opinion on my type and said your piece. If I'm a nuisance, then why don't you just leave me alone? 

In fact, I'm requesting it from you as well. Leave me alone. I don't care if you talk to FAT, Phantom, etc. because it's their business whether or not to deal with you. But do not directly quote me or mention me after this post. It'll be reported. I suggest checking out the new typing rules that have been posted as well.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Night Huntress said:


> Perhaps you're not aware, then, that there were extensive and detailed discussions (involving several members of the Socionics/cognitive function communities) about the reasoning behind that typing in several threads in the past. It's ironic you mention "general pattern(s)", as those previous discussions are some facts and contexts you should keep in mind too, before you generalize about the validity of a type-related comment.


If you have that proof, then you should link it instead of expecting that the other person will dig for it. This is specially relevant if the topics are old enough for being buried under a pile of other threads. If you make a claim and also mention the proof, then you should show it instead of just trying to act in a condescending way.


----------



## SheWolf

FearAndTrembling said:


> My mother would be mortified if she saw the shit I said on the internet. lol.
> 
> And somebody said that 80 questions is better. That is missing the point. You are using the wrong bait to begin with. Doubling up the wrong bait is not gonna make you catch anything. You don't have the proper mechanism to catch what you think you are fishing for.
> 
> There is a reason therapists and psychology have no use for this stuff. I would think less of a therapist if they had to use it. A therapist should know their patients on a much more specific level than typology is capable of.
> 
> "I, senor, am not one of anything, but, like you, senor, I am unique."


I can honestly say that I haven't said much on the internet that I wouldn't say in person.

True. No amount of typology can perfectly define a person. Sometimes I hate Socionics with their intertype relations theory. I am sure that in real life I have a multitude of friends with different types/in different quadras. I met a kid a couple years ago that fit the Gamma descriptions pretty well and him and I got along great. He even invited me to shit all the time.

Relationships are far more complicated than what this system makes it seem like. Just because someone is my dual does not mean they're my soul mate. Just because someone is my conflictor doesn't mean we are going to be bitter enemies. If it worked so simply like that in real life... I would almost hate it.


----------



## karmachameleon

ShieldMaiden said:


> Just because someone is my dual does not mean they're my soul mate. Just because someone is my conflictor doesn't mean we are going to be bitter enemies.


That's not what the theory suggests though.


----------



## To_august

ShieldMaiden said:


> The 80q has similar questions.


Questions are not perfect ofc (hardly there can be a perfect set of questions at all), but they are not random and were compiled with concrete purpose in mind. You're not knowing or not understanding their purpose has nothing to do with the questionnaire.


----------



## SheWolf

karmachameleon said:


> That's not what the theory suggests though.


I don't give a fuck about what the theory suggests. The keyword there being theory.

People are complicated. I won't put a person into one of sixteen molds. Human beings aren't robots.


----------



## SheWolf

To_august said:


> Questions are not perfect ofc (hardly there can be a perfect set of questions at all), but they are not random and were compiled with concrete purpose in mind. You're not knowing or not understanding their purpose has nothing to do with the questionnaire.


Mmm'kay.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Statements as opinions, or opinions as statements? Try that one lol


----------



## SheWolf

So. ESE. What does Ni PoLR look like/how does it manifest?


----------



## karmachameleon

ShieldMaiden said:


> I don't give a fuck about what the theory suggests. The keyword there being theory.
> 
> People are complicated. I won't put a person into one of sixteen molds. Human beings aren't robots.


Then why are you trying so hard to figure out your type if you can't be fit into a mold like that?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Panic attacks when pressed for time. Superstitious. Conscious paranoia about the past or future.


----------



## SheWolf

karmachameleon said:


> Then why are you trying so hard to figure out your type?


Could be an E4 thing. Things to add to my sense of identity. Or it could just be a "me" thing. Doesn't matter.


----------



## soseductive

karmachameleon said:


> Youre not ESI btw


Don't tell me that i am...

* *




ENTJ


----------



## Verity

karmachameleon said:


> Then why are you trying so hard to figure out your type if you can't be fit into a mold like that?


I think you might find one answer here:



ShieldMaiden said:


> So. ESE. What does Ni PoLR look like/how does it manifest?


ESE and LSE (Ni PoLR) feel very uncomfortable in a situation that forces them:
- To become stuck in their memories, patiently wait for the more favorable circumstances;
- To put up with the fact that they are running out of time, or they are under time pressure;
- To recognize that they are short of time;
_- To recognize that they are self-contradictory and need to achieve a calmer inner state._

Source: PoLR Descriptions


----------



## Dragheart Luard

ShieldMaiden said:


> So. ESE. What does Ni PoLR look like/how does it manifest?


4th Function - Ni  Introverted intuition (Hugo - ESE, Robespierre - LII)Some unforeseen matters constantly appear under the effect of the mood in Hugo, the desire to make something such constantly appears, what it did not plan. Being fascinated by some occupation, Hugo frequently ignores time factor - it he is desirable to stop time or to think that it stops at this moment, although he knows that this not so, and greatly it is nervous in regard to this. Hugo constantly experiences the desire to make more than can have time, and, as a consequence of this, a constant fear of overloads, overvoltage, fuss, nervousness and the sensation of fatigue.Hugo it is very difficult to plan its day: the graph of its matters constantly is shifted and it uplotnyaetsya. Hugo fears the unforeseen expenditure of time. Therefore any overexpenditure of his time irritates. Hugo irritates uninvited guest, and unexpected telephone call, and neproshenyy visitor. The need for altering its work irritates, and it means, to spend on it excess time. Irritate the expectation of transport, plug on the roads, turns in the stores. (you do not envy to that, who before Hugo's nose attempts to rush by without the turn.) Hugo constantly hurries and constantly drive on others. Frequently, when it is in the unbalanced, overexcited state, for it characteristically some feverish impatience with the notes of irritation in the voice.It is very unpleasant to observe, when Hugo, hardly after having time to arrive in guests, already begin somewhere to hurry. This greatly interfere withs contact with it - it as if drive on the masters: hurrying, it questions all news, rapidly examines all new acquisitions, then is arranged fuss around the celebratory meal, and there already and for the hours casts looks - home time! In its people irritate sluggishness, awkwardness, insufficiently fast responses, insufficiently rapid mental acuity.Hugo irritates, when in the conversation they return to the theme, which it considers for itself depleted. It irritates, when "pour of the empty into emptier". The insufficient informativeness of conversation irritates - in it the sensation of the waste of time appears. Hugo rarely succeeds himself in selecting time for reading. Therefore representatives of this type, in essence, read in the transport, in the turns, late at night before the sleep or early in the morning before to arise. Hugo does not love the books with the slow development of subject and too detailed an account.Hugo dreams about that time, when he is able to live without hurrying and to manage to do everything which it wants. But this desire so remains unrealizable dream. Hugo always cannot allow himself quietly to sit after the needelwork - the sensation of the irrationally utilized time constantly torments it. Therefore representatives of this type try to combine all those matters, which can be made simultaneously: if it sits and sews, then in it already simultaneously and washing is twisted, and something is cooked on the plate, and the television set it at this time watches something, on top of that and it manages to answer on the telephone. Constantly living in the regime of increased business activity, Hugo it does not manage (yes and it does not allow for itself)"to make a pause", to analyze situation, to see it in the development and to correct its plans for the future.It is not capable to economically expend its forces. Very painfully it survives, when they criticize the inopportuneness of its actions. It does not transfer, when they charge it with the unproductive expenditure of time. It is irritated, when they limit it in the time: he so tries it to maximally rationally expend, but if this is not always obtained, then only because Hugo (as any "sensorik") on the private venture beret to itself additional responsibilities. Therefore in it some unforeseen pressing matters constantly appear.Greatly it does not love to be late. He tries to hide its incapacity to calculate time: for example, if very strongly it is late to some measure, then frequently it prefers completely to not go. It survives, when they criticize it for the insufficient punctuality. It always is nervous, when for it it is necessary to coordinate the time: to it it is very difficult to perceive the course of time, it is difficult to calculate its expenditure (work, connected with the coordination of time to representatives of this type is clearly contrasted). Hugo without fail desires to be up to date in all news and all events, since, as has already been spoken, active civic stand distinguishes it.The planned social and political prospects always interest it, the new constantly appearing possibility. Constantly it hopes for the changes, which will open new prospects personally for it. It expects with the aid of these changes to solve some its personal problems. Hugo - optimist, it awaits from the life of entire only best. Therefore unforeseen complications and its troubles terribly disappoint. (by Hugo they disappoint even films or books, which unexpectedly badly conclude.) It does not love skeptics, who forecast to it troubles. Even if itself senses danger, it prefers not to be advised those, who see future only in the gloomy light.Hugo greatly tries to be foresighted and farsighted, what do he has, unfortunately, it is not always obtained. Therefore it receives any criticism in regard to this exceptionally painfully. Position radically changes, when the partner of Hugo becomes his dual. Robesp'er magnificently knows how to plan out time so that it would be created no prerequisites for the overloads and the overvoltage. Robesp'er corrects Hugo's plans, are regulated the rates of its business activity, it creates to it the regime of most optimum vital activity - condition, with which the high productivity of work is combined with the most rational expenditure of time. In the plan of forecasts, Robesp'er it is also more preferable than all other types -"intuitov", since it only, who is subconsiously disposed to the intuitive sensations of Hugo. Furthermore, his forecasts always have logical substantiation, and therefore they seem Hugo by especially convincing, since for Hugo is convincing everything, which is logical.With the aid of Hugo's Robesp'era economizes the time, necessary for consideration and solution of important problems, since any thought, which Hugo unsuccessfully attempted to consider, to base and to understand, in the account Robesp'era immediately becomes simple, natural and accessible for the understanding. And here we approach the description of the following, "suggested" function of Hugo - to the logic of relationships.

Source: ESE by Stratiyevskaya - Wikisocion

4.  Introverted IntuitionESEs prefer to focus on immediate tasks, taking things as they come, rather than try to evaluate whether or not the task at hand will be very important in the longer run. A common consequence of this is an inclination to get stuck with last-minute tasks that keep the ESE distracted from later appointments or tasks, leading to being late for those.They generally have a poor sense of how long things will take, and what the best amount of time to spend on things is. Therefore it is difficult for ESEs to stay on schedule without extensive (even total) pre-planning. ESEs very often have very precise agendas to plan their professional and personal lives, and yet be somewhat late when actually going about them.ESEs are more confortable narrating events or stories, or making a point, on a sequential basis - "this happened, and then this, and then that" - since they are not confident that others will connect the dots as to how one event leads to the other, since the ESEs do not feel confident when doing that themselves.They perceive time in an undifferentiated manner: the past, present, and future are all perceived as being in or near the present. When talking about the future (especially one's longer-term plans), ESEs treat it as if it were accessible today and often they are not aware of all the developments that must happen first, and how long those can take.

Source: Wikisocion ESE composite - Wikisocion


----------



## SheWolf

Jeremy8419 said:


> Panic attacks when pressed for time. Superstitious. Conscious paranoia about the past or future.


Hm. I don't like being late for things, but, I don't think that's exactly what you're talking about. 

Not superstitious in the sense that I create conspiracy theories and think that if a black cat crosses my path I'll be doomed for bad luck.

I have no paranoia about the past. My paranoia for the future is more that I want to know what it's going to be like. I mull over my future pretty often, always have.


----------



## Jeremy8419

ES («Hugo») | School of System Socionics
SE (â€œDumasâ€�) | School of System Socionics
FR («Napoleon, Caesar») | School of System Socionics
RF («Dreiser») | School of System Socionics

All 4 SF's.


----------



## SheWolf

Mordred Phantom said:


> *4th Function - Ni  Introverted intuition (Hugo - ESE, Robespierre - LII)*
> 
> Some unforeseen matters constantly appear under the effect of the mood in Hugo, the desire to make something such constantly appears, what it did not plan. Being fascinated by some occupation, Hugo frequently ignores time factor - it he is desirable to stop time or to think that it stops at this moment, although he knows that this not so, and greatly it is nervous in regard to this. Hugo constantly experiences the desire to make more than can have time, and, as a consequence of this, a constant fear of overloads, overvoltage, fuss, nervousness and the sensation of fatigue.Hugo it is very difficult to plan its day: the graph of its matters constantly is shifted and it uplotnyaetsya. Hugo fears the unforeseen expenditure of time. Therefore any overexpenditure of his time irritates. Hugo irritates uninvited guest, and unexpected telephone call, and neproshenyy visitor. The need for altering its work irritates, and it means, to spend on it excess time. Irritate the expectation of transport, plug on the roads, turns in the stores. (you do not envy to that, who before Hugo's nose attempts to rush by without the turn.) Hugo constantly hurries and constantly drive on others. Frequently, when it is in the unbalanced, overexcited state, for it characteristically some feverish impatience with the notes of irritation in the voice.It is very unpleasant to observe, when Hugo, hardly after having time to arrive in guests, already begin somewhere to hurry. This greatly interfere withs contact with it - it as if drive on the masters: hurrying, it questions all news, rapidly examines all new acquisitions, then is arranged fuss around the celebratory meal, and there already and for the hours casts looks - home time! In its people irritate sluggishness, awkwardness, insufficiently fast responses, insufficiently rapid mental acuity.Hugo irritates, when in the conversation they return to the theme, which it considers for itself depleted. It irritates, when "pour of the empty into emptier". The insufficient informativeness of conversation irritates - in it the sensation of the waste of time appears. Hugo rarely succeeds himself in selecting time for reading. Therefore representatives of this type, in essence, read in the transport, in the turns, late at night before the sleep or early in the morning before to arise. Hugo does not love the books with the slow development of subject and too detailed an account.Hugo dreams about that time, when he is able to live without hurrying and to manage to do everything which it wants. But this desire so remains unrealizable dream. Hugo always cannot allow himself quietly to sit after the needelwork - the sensation of the irrationally utilized time constantly torments it. Therefore representatives of this type try to combine all those matters, which can be made simultaneously: if it sits and sews, then in it already simultaneously and washing is twisted, and something is cooked on the plate, and the television set it at this time watches something, on top of that and it manages to answer on the telephone. Constantly living in the regime of increased business activity, Hugo it does not manage (yes and it does not allow for itself)"to make a pause", to analyze situation, to see it in the development and to correct its plans for the future.It is not capable to economically expend its forces. Very painfully it survives, when they criticize the inopportuneness of its actions. It does not transfer, when they charge it with the unproductive expenditure of time. It is irritated, when they limit it in the time: he so tries it to maximally rationally expend, but if this is not always obtained, then only because Hugo (as any "sensorik") on the private venture beret to itself additional responsibilities. Therefore in it some unforeseen pressing matters constantly appear.Greatly it does not love to be late. He tries to hide its incapacity to calculate time: for example, if very strongly it is late to some measure, then frequently it prefers completely to not go. It survives, when they criticize it for the insufficient punctuality. It always is nervous, when for it it is necessary to coordinate the time: to it it is very difficult to perceive the course of time, it is difficult to calculate its expenditure (work, connected with the coordination of time to representatives of this type is clearly contrasted). Hugo without fail desires to be up to date in all news and all events, since, as has already been spoken, active civic stand distinguishes it.The planned social and political prospects always interest it, the new constantly appearing possibility. Constantly it hopes for the changes, which will open new prospects personally for it. It expects with the aid of these changes to solve some its personal problems. Hugo - optimist, it awaits from the life of entire only best. Therefore unforeseen complications and its troubles terribly disappoint. (by Hugo they disappoint even films or books, which unexpectedly badly conclude.) It does not love skeptics, who forecast to it troubles. Even if itself senses danger, it prefers not to be advised those, who see future only in the gloomy light.Hugo greatly tries to be foresighted and farsighted, what do he has, unfortunately, it is not always obtained. Therefore it receives any criticism in regard to this exceptionally painfully. Position radically changes, when the partner of Hugo becomes his dual. Robesp'er magnificently knows how to plan out time so that it would be created no prerequisites for the overloads and the overvoltage. Robesp'er corrects Hugo's plans, are regulated the rates of its business activity, it creates to it the regime of most optimum vital activity - condition, with which the high productivity of work is combined with the most rational expenditure of time. In the plan of forecasts, Robesp'er it is also more preferable than all other types -"intuitov", since it only, who is subconsiously disposed to the intuitive sensations of Hugo. Furthermore, his forecasts always have logical substantiation, and therefore they seem Hugo by especially convincing, since for Hugo is convincing everything, which is logical.With the aid of Hugo's Robesp'era economizes the time, necessary for consideration and solution of important problems, since any thought, which Hugo unsuccessfully attempted to consider, to base and to understand, in the account Robesp'era immediately becomes simple, natural and accessible for the understanding. And here we approach the description of the following, "suggested" function of Hugo - to the logic of relationships.
> 
> Source: ESE by Stratiyevskaya - Wikisocion
> 
> *4.  Introverted Intuition*
> 
> ESEs prefer to focus on immediate tasks, taking things as they come, rather than try to evaluate whether or not the task at hand will be very important in the longer run. A common consequence of this is an inclination to get stuck with last-minute tasks that keep the ESE distracted from later appointments or tasks, leading to being late for those.They generally have a poor sense of how long things will take, and what the best amount of time to spend on things is. Therefore it is difficult for ESEs to stay on schedule without extensive (even total) pre-planning. ESEs very often have very precise agendas to plan their professional and personal lives, and yet be somewhat late when actually going about them.ESEs are more confortable narrating events or stories, or making a point, on a sequential basis - "this happened, and then this, and then that" - since they are not confident that others will connect the dots as to how one event leads to the other, since the ESEs do not feel confident when doing that themselves.They perceive time in an undifferentiated manner: the past, present, and future are all perceived as being in or near the present. When talking about the future (especially one's longer-term plans), ESEs treat it as if it were accessible today and often they are not aware of all the developments that must happen first, and how long those can take.
> 
> Source: Wikisocion ESE composite - Wikisocion


Bleh, alas, I can't apply this to myself. Hm.


----------



## SheWolf

soseductive said:


> Don't tell me that i am...
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ENTJ


You're hilarious is what you are. XD Love your sense of humor.


----------



## SheWolf

Note to self: Wearing a Deadpool T-shirt is a serious conversation starter.


Seriously. I got several people in the grocery store trying to talk to me now. XD


----------



## Figure

Thread warning: Please refrain from unsolicited typing. 

Thanks!


----------



## To_august

Verity said:


> Kylo is not a sith though.
> 
> "Kylo Ren is not a Sith. He works under Supreme Leader Snoke, who is a powerful figure on the Dark Side of the Force." - JJ Abrams
> Why Snoke & Kylo Ren Aren't Sith In Star Wars 7 - MoviePilot.com
> 
> @_To_august_ Also, it seems my theory is likely false:
> 
> _"It was neither poor strategy nor arrogance that brought down the Empire. You know too well what did."
> Ren nodded once. "Sentiment."
> "Yes. Had Lord Vader not succumbed to emotion at the crucial moment—had the father killed the son—the Empire would have prevailed. And there would be no threat of Skywalker’s return today."_
> 
> So Kylo was aware of the truth, which makes no sense(why would he worship Vader if he was weak?). Unless he means that he's secretly going to destroy the remnants of the Empire? Maybe he's playing both sides in order to bring balance to the force.
> 
> If any of you feel like discussing further, respond in one of the quadra threads as to not derail this one too much.


I'll take it here.

Thank you for the link. I thought Snoke was a Sith actually and Kylo his soon-to-become-a-full-fledged-apprentice, because right before the collapse of the Starkiller Base Snoke mentioned that Kylo needs to return to him to complete training. So ok, Kylo is not a Sith and Snoke is not a Sith eather, but the latter is still the darksider, who all drew powers from raw feelings such as anger, so the core of his teaching should be virtually the same as the one of Sith. Beating the wound and angering himself in order to draw more power seem to make sense.

Maybe it was a thing of right place, right time and the way who and how presented information to Kylo, and how things developed gradually? What I mean is that - _a bunch of speculations incoming_ - we know Leia and Han had difficult, on and off relationships, which could influence Kylo's childhood experiences. Could be that troubled periods lasted throughout his childhood and when he was a kid or a teen he started feeling power he could not understand, and felt abandoned and misunderstood. Did parents tried to explain things to him (or one parent at that time? Leia may be?), most likely yes, but something went wrong. Leia also mentioned that Vader's genes were stronger, which could mean he were initially drawn to the dark side. This could be the time when Snoke found him and became the figure Kylo searched for. Snoke of course could answer many of Kylo's questions and didn't hesitate to present him with advantages of the dark side.

It's not clear how much Kylo knew about Darth Vader in terms of him being his grandfather. If he didn't and it was Snoke who told him, it could also push Kylo further away from the family that wasn't honest with him. While Kylo was discovering "wonders of force" Snoke was tightening grip of influence on him. Probably not without a help of Snoke idea about Kylo being almost a reincarnation of Vader himself happened to habit itself in Kylo's mind and encouraged. At this point Vader's redemption could be viewed by Kylo as a mistake of a weakness he has to remember not to repeat, but the one that doesn't degrade the glory of his grandfather as the Sith Lord, but the specimen who's deeds has to be followed.

I believe somewhere around this time Leia and/or Han sent him to Luke for training as they saw something wrong was going on with their son. It's interesting what actually happened to others Luke trained. I believe Kylo wasn't his only pupil, or was he? Had the scene in Jedi temple at the end of third episode repeated? Had Kylo killed everybody and Luke fled to his lonely hide?

Anyway, I don't believe he secretly works for the 'good side'. He went as far as killing his father and unless they agreed to doing this beforehand... It's possible there is an intricate undercover plan that, for example, Luke actually succeeded and converted Kylo to his side, and now he works undercover to get to the heart of Snoke's plans and destroy him, but... that's unlikely, I think. It also seems that Kylo is really angry at Han, as he mentioned to Rey that Han as a father is a disappointment.

Oh, this went long so I'm folding up for now.


----------



## Verity

To_august said:


> I'll take it here.
> 
> Thank you for the link. I thought Snoke was a Sith actually and Kylo his soon-to-become-a-full-fledged-apprentice, because right before the collapse of the Starkiller Base Snoke mentioned that Kylo needs to return to him to complete training. So ok, Kylo is not a Sith and Snoke is not a Sith eather, but the latter is still the darksider, who all drew powers from raw feelings such as anger, so the core of his teaching should be virtually the same as the one of Sith. Beating the wound and angering himself in order to draw more power seem to make sense.
> 
> Maybe it was a thing of right place, right time and the way who and how presented information to Kylo, and how things developed gradually? What I mean is that - _a bunch of speculations incoming_ - we know Leia and Han had difficult, on and off relationships, which could influence Kylo's childhood experiences. Could be that troubled periods lasted throughout his childhood and when he was a kid or a teen he started feeling power he could not understand, and felt abandoned and misunderstood. Did parents tried to explain things to him (or one parent at that time? Leia may be?), most likely yes, but something went wrong. Leia also mentioned that Vader's genes were stronger, which could mean he were initially drawn to the dark side. This could be the time when Snoke found him and became the figure Kylo searched for. Snoke of course could answer many of Kylo's questions and didn't hesitate to present him with advantages of the dark side.
> 
> It's not clear how much Kylo knew about Darth Vader in terms of him being his grandfather. If he didn't and it was Snoke who told him, it could also push Kylo further away from the family that wasn't honest with him. While Kylo was discovering "wonders of force" Snoke was tightening grip of influence on him. Probably not without a help of Snoke idea about Kylo being almost a reincarnation of Vader himself happened to habit itself in Kylo's mind and encouraged. At this point Vader's redemption could be viewed by Kylo as a mistake of a weakness he has to remember not to repeat, but the one that doesn't degrade the glory of his grandfather as the Sith Lord, but the specimen who's deeds has to be followed.


Yeah, after contemplating it all a bit I had something similar in mind. Lines like "I will finish what you started" kinda serve to confuse me though(What exactly did Vader start? Wasn't he just a puppet to the Emperor?), but I guess it could be interpreted as just taking control of the galaxy.



> I believe somewhere around this time Leia and/or Han sent him to Luke for training as they saw something wrong was going on with their son. It's interesting what actually happened to others Luke trained. I believe Kylo wasn't his only pupil, or was he? Had the scene in Jedi temple at the end of third episode repeated? Had Kylo killed everybody and Luke fled to his lonely hide?
> 
> Anyway, I don't believe he secretly works for the 'good side'. He went as far as killing his father and unless they agreed to doing this beforehand... It's possible there is an intricate undercover plan that, for example, Luke actually succeeded and converted Kylo to his side, and now he works undercover to get to the heart of Snoke's plans and destroy him, but... that's unlikely, I think. It also seems that Kylo is really angry at Han, as he mentioned to Rey that Han as a father is a disappointment.
> 
> Oh, this went long so I'm folding up for now.


Yeah, I don't see him pulling the "undercover-agent" either. I think there's merit to the idea, if not 100% probable that there will be a redemption arc for Kylo though, but I do think he will fall even deeper to the Dark side before that. It would make little narrative sense to just have him start evil(even if very chaotic) and just become more evil. I expect it to be pretty much the reverse of Anakin's arc.

And remember, it's _Star Wars_ that we are talking about. When I take into account the storytelling we've seen in the earlier films, I doubt much of this will be explicitly shown.

I think Luke will explain a bit more of what really happened, but I doubt we'll get a much more complex motivation for Kylo's choices than we've already gotten, meaning that he was a confused child disappointed with his parents, throwing tantrums at anything and anyone in his way, who might also have been largely ignored by the still naive young Luke, and then Snoke grasped the opportunity to turn him towards the Dark Side by promising power and recognition, when he realized the potential power inside the grandson of Anakin. Luke probably only realized how deeply corrupted Kylo was when it was too late, which made him break down completely.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> Yeah, after contemplating it all a bit I had something similar in mind. Lines like "I will finish what you started" kinda serve to confuse me though(What exactly did Vader start? Wasn't he just a puppet to the Emperor?), but I guess it could be interpreted as just taking control of the galaxy.


Foreshadowing. Anikan was supposed to bring balance to the force, and assumingly did so with his defeat of the emperor and death, but never really managed to. Possibly brings down the dark side and restarts the council.


----------



## Verity

Jeremy8419 said:


> Foreshadowing. Anikan was supposed to bring balance to the force, and assumingly did so with his defeat of the emperor and death, but never really managed to. Possibly brings down the dark side and restarts the council.


That only really makes sense if Kylo is secretly working for the good guys, which is pretty unlikely.


----------



## SheWolf

@The Perfect Storm

Forgot to mention I took my romance styles discussion to an actual thread just in case you'd like to return to it.

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/827953-whats-problem-romance-style.html


----------



## Kintsugi

ShieldMaiden said:


> @_The Perfect Storm_
> 
> Forgot to mention I took my romance styles discussion to an actual thread just in case you'd like to return to it.
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/827953-whats-problem-romance-style.html


Will check it out when I got some free time. ^_^


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> That only really makes sense if Kylo is secretly working for the good guys, which is pretty unlikely.


Or if they increase the pacing in the second movie, which is plausible.


----------



## Verity

Jeremy8419 said:


> Or if they increase the pacing in the second movie, which is plausible.


It's still not a factual statement, but rather an expression of Kylo's motivation, and I was wondering what he meant by it. There will likely be a double-meaning to it that foreshadows his redemption arc when viewed in context with the rest of the trilogy but it doesn't explain what he meant at the time.


----------



## SheWolf

@The Perfect Storm Was gonna move the discussion here anyway. 



The Perfect Storm said:


> OMFG...yes.
> 
> I always thought Alpha....
> 
> EDIT: It always annoyed me because I love the idea of travelling through a wonderland but trying to read the books hurt my head. Like, there was no "flow" to it, or something.


Yeah, I have a big book of Lewis Carroll's writings but I've only read a bit of it. I like stories with progression, if you know what I mean.  It's not to say I don't love the whimsy of his work, but it gets kinda boring to me after awhile.

However, if you read them closely, you find that these stories actually have some darkness to them.

Also, continuing on about how I was into dark things even as a child...

My friends and I discussed some pretty morbid stuff, too. I was always friends with the outcasts, the kids that were shunned for being different, they were my people. Geeks for the win.


----------



## Kintsugi

ShieldMaiden said:


> Yeah, I have a big book of Lewis Carroll's writings but I've only read a bit of it. I like stories with progression, if you know what I mean.  It's not to say I don't love the whimsy of his work, but it gets kinda boring to me after awhile.
> 
> However, if you read them closely, you find that these stories actually have some darkness to them.


Yes, I love stories with progression too! I find things with too much Ne just end up leaving me feeling frustrated and unfulfilled (but more so with Alpha Ne, Delta Ne isn't as bad because of the Fi <3).

I absolutely HATE comedy that is just surreal random slapstick. Ugh.



> Also, continuing on about how I was into dark things even as a child...
> 
> My friends and I discussed some pretty morbid stuff, too. I was always friends with the outcasts, the kids that were shunned for being different, they were my people. Geeks for the win.


My two best friends at school were most likely ESI. We LOVED talking about morbid and supernatural stuff (and used to hang out in graveyards all the time xD). I was definitely more extroverted and more of a social butterfly than them, though. They kept themselves to themselves (only got close to a few trusted people), whereas I hung out with EVERYONE, I was accepted by both geeks and the popular kids. People found it difficult to put me in a box because I was interested in everyone and everything (lol, Se-dom ). My personal favourites were the geeks and outcasts though. They were by far the most interesting people to hang and chat with.

As I got older I became a lot more socially introverted though (mainly because I got really sick in my late teens and spent some time in hospital and as a result life didn't go in the direction I had planned on going. I lost a lot of confidence because of that). Honestly, I think a lot of that is the reason why I struggle wit social anxiety. I'd say I'm more withdrawn than both of my ESI friends now, but that's mainly due to life experiences and struggles.


----------



## SheWolf

The Perfect Storm said:


> I absolutely HATE comedy that is just surreal random slapstick. Ugh.


Examples? Some slapstick movies, like Home Alone, I found hilarious.

The kind of comedy I hate is movies like Jackass. So... stupid and pointless. not even funny. Or my brother turned on Tropic Thunder last week. I hate that movie. The satire it tried to convey could've been potentially hilarious but it was just executed all wrong.

I don't know if you're a fan or not, but have you seen Batman V Superman? that movie has a ton of Ne. Lots of half-baked ideas that were never fully fleshed out, some things were missing, made you have to "connect the dots." It was hard to follow along with it, though I loved the action scenes of course.



> My two best friends at school were most likely ESI. We LOVED talking about morbid and supernatural stuff (and used to hang out in graveyards all the time xD). I was definitely more extroverted and more of a social butterfly than them, though. They kept themselves to themselves (only got close to a few trusted people), whereas I hung out with EVERYONE, I was accepted by both geeks and the popular kids. People found it difficult to put me in a box because I was interested in everyone and everything (lol, Se-dom ). My personal favourites were the geeks and outcasts though. They were by far the most interesting people to hang and chat with.


Oh yes. My friends and I were the kids that played in the woods, lonely dirt roads, or wandered graveyards. Hell, we still are to this day. We still discuss the supernatural.

This is me when I meet someone I have something in common with.


* *



















> As I got older I became a lot more socially introverted though (mainly because I got really sick in my late teens and spent some time in hospital and as a result life didn't go in the direction I had planned on going. I lost a lot of confidence because of that). Honestly, I think a lot of that is the reason why I struggle wit social anxiety. I'd say I'm more withdrawn than both of my ESI friends now, but that's mainly due to life experiences and struggles.


Aw man. That sucks. :/ I was a bit more extroverted as a kid, too, until I was bullied for being weird. Then I withdrew, became even more distrustful, but at the same time it strengthened the bonds I had with those that actually mattered. I was always good at picking good friends, though. I never tried to "fit in" with the popular kids, especially when I saw how cruel they were to my other friends.


----------



## Kintsugi

ShieldMaiden said:


> Examples? Some slapstick movies, like Home Alone, I found hilarious.


Slapstick by itself is fine. It's just the stuff that is also random and surrealist (i.e. to me it feels like it doesn't have a point.)

This is an example of comedy that I just don't understand (not exactly slapstick but the pointless randomness is there). Someone once showed it to me and I was like...WTF?!

So much Ne?! 

(btw, you really don't have to watch all of it, I didn't! )








> Oh yes. My friends and I were the kids that played in the woods, lonely dirt roads, or wandered graveyards. Hell, we still are to this day. We still discuss the supernatural.
> 
> This is me when I meet someone I have something in common with.


Aww, I kinda miss playing in graveyards and trying to bring serial killers back from the dead. Also, I miss the woods near my house in England. 

Australia doesn't have the creepy graveyards, houses, and castles that the UK has. 

I'm still interested in serial killers though. Love watching crime documentaries (I'm fascinated with the psychology behind it all....and do still like gore even though now it freaks me out because as I grew older I became more in touch with my "mortality" ).

Also, I'm seeing the 4 in you now, haha. 



> Aw man. That sucks. :/ I was a bit more extroverted as a kid, too, until I was bullied for being weird. Then I withdrew, became even more distrustful, but at the same time it strengthened the bonds I had with those that actually mattered. I was always good at picking good friends, though. I never tried to "fit in" with the popular kids, especially when I saw how cruel they were to my other friends.​


I wasn't always the best at picking friends, tbh. I was just always up for a new adventure or experience. I became a lot more selective as I grew older though (perhaps my Fi got stronger as I developed?)

A part of me wishes I had spent more time with "my kind" of people at school. When things got bad for me a lot of my so-called friends weren't there in the way that I needed them to be. Still, those that were there, I will always consider my friends, even if we don't really see or speak to each other much. That bond will remain strong.


----------



## SheWolf

The Perfect Storm said:


> Slapstick by itself is fine. It's just the stuff that is also random and surrealist (i.e. to me it feels like it doesn't have a point.)
> 
> This is an example of comedy that I just don't understand (not exactly slapstick but the pointless randomness is there). Someone once showed it to me and I was like...WTF?!


.... I got through about one minute and I was done. Not so much as a chuckle.


> Australia doesn't have the creepy graveyards, houses, and castles that the UK has.


That's why I really, really want to go to the UK. I've always wanted to since I was a little girl. I will hopefully get there some day.

Australia? NOPE. I love creepy things, but big-ass spiders are the exception.


> I'm still interested in serial killers though. Love watching crime documentaries (I'm fascinated with the psychology behind it all....and do still like gore even though now it freaks me out because as I grew older I became more in touch with my "mortality" ).


I've always kind of wondered about them, too. However, I actually can't stand horror movies. I'm too empathic and the pure malevolence/immoralness of it gets to me. As I've gotten older, I've gotten better about it though. I play horror video games and watch some pretty violent anime (*cough* Hellsing *cough*)

Movies that focus less on gore and more on "thrill" I can do. Thrillers, rather than slashers I guess is the term.

Like okay, when I was in my film appreciation class we had to watch Apocalypse Now. I hate that movie. Firstly because it was boring and then I found it just made my morally-inclined self shudder with irritation. 



> Also, I'm seeing the 4 in you now, haha.


Eee-yup. XD I switched to Core 4 again. Seems a bit more likely. Especially since I've began to notice what exactly my disintegration to 2 looks like. It's not pretty and I'm ashamed. 



> I wasn't always the best at picking friends, tbh. I was just always up for a new adventure or experience. I became a lot more selective as I grew older though (perhaps my Fi got stronger as I developed?)
> 
> A part of me wishes I had spent more time with "my kind" of people at school. When things got bad for me a lot of my so-called friends weren't there in the way that I needed them to be. Still, those that were there, I will always consider my friends, even if we don't really see or speak to each other much. That bond will remain strong.


The price I paid was the fact that I didn't have as many friends and my experiences were a bit fewer. But the experiences I did have I cherish deeply to this day. We've kind of gone our separate ways, as such the tragedy of time passing and growing up, but I know we'd never forget one another.


----------



## Kintsugi

ShieldMaiden said:


> .... I got through about one minute and I was done. Not so much as a chuckle.


Haha, I predicted that! 

Seriously, I don't blame you. When this guy showed me this I managed one episode before I was like...












> That's why I really, really want to go to the UK. I've always wanted to since I was a little girl. I will hopefully get there some day.
> 
> Australia? NOPE. I love creepy things, but big-ass spiders are the exception.


I think you'd love the UK. It's such a great place for that kind of thing (and the history is awesome). I miss the grey and rainy weather. It's a little too hot here for me. 

Australia has its own beauty. I love hiking and exploring, so from that perspective, it's pretty good for someone like me. However, I HATE some of the insects here (namely the frickin' cockroaches that are EVERYWHERE. And I mean the real ones ).

I have a crippling fear of them. 



> I've always kind of wondered about them, too. However, I actually can't stand horror movies. I'm too empathic and the pure malevolence/immoralness of it gets to me. As I've gotten older, I've gotten better about it though. I play horror video games and watch some pretty violent anime (*cough* Hellsing *cough*)
> 
> Movies that focus less on gore and more on "thrill" I can do. Thrillers, rather than slashers I guess is the term.
> 
> Like okay, when I was in my film appreciation class we had to watch Apocalypse Now. I hate that movie. Firstly because it was boring and then I found it just made my morally-inclined self shudder with irritation.


This sounds very Fi-dom again. I love it. ^_^

Honestly, the malevolence/immoralness doesn't really bother me so much, but as I have got older the violence has (mainly because of PTSD issues). I can't even stomach gore as much as I could as a kid, I've become more and more afraid of my own death and sometimes that stuff can trigger that anxiety.

I'm AWFUL at playing horror games. Seriously, my partner tries to get me to play them and I end up screaming the place down (and worrying the neighbours). Again, I think it triggers my anxiety. I love watching other people play them though. xD

I love violent anime (Hellsing is awesome ^_^).

My favourite kind of horror is by far psychological horror. I LOVE that genre (my favourite!) Slashers kinda bore me tbh, I actually prefer thrillers too.



> Eee-yup. XD I switched to Core 4 again. Seems a bit more likely. Especially since I've began to notice what exactly my disintegration to 2 looks like. It's not pretty and I'm ashamed.


Yeah, there were similar reasons why I switched from 7 to 6. The ugly side of 6 makes a lot more sense for me than 7. 7 is what my anxious and needy self aspires to be (even though all types are screwed up in their own way).



> The price I paid was the fact that I didn't have as many friends and my experiences were a bit fewer. But the experiences I did have I cherish deeply to this day. We've kind of gone our separate ways, as such the tragedy of time passing and growing up, but I know we'd never forget one another.


It's interesting seeing how things played out for us in this respect. It does line up quite nicely with the SEE/ESI differences I think. ^_^


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

I'm starting to get miffed about Beta being shut down. It's like the landlord came in and put an eviction notice on my door. Ugh.

So how are you, Gammas?


----------



## Kintsugi

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I'm starting to get miffed about Beta being shut down. It's like the landlord came in and put an eviction notice on my door. Ugh.
> 
> So how are you, Gammas?


Yeah, it's getting old.


----------



## Kintsugi

@_ShieldMaiden_

I was just thinking, even your username screams ESI (i.e. the "Guardian"). ^_^


----------



## SheWolf

The Perfect Storm said:


> Haha, I predicted that!
> 
> Seriously, I don't blame you. When this guy showed me this I managed one episode before I was like...


I love that gif. XD





> I think you'd love the UK. It's such a great place for that kind of thing (and the history is awesome). I miss the grey and rainy weather. It's a little too hot here for me.


I adore the rain and mist... *sigh* I especially love it when it's a cool rain.



> Australia has its own beauty. I love hiking and exploring, so from that perspective, it's pretty good for someone like me. However, I HATE some of the insects here (namely the frickin' cockroaches that are EVERYWHERE. And I mean the real ones ).
> 
> I have a crippling fear of them.


I have a hatred for almost all creepy crawlies. Spiders, however, are the bane of my very existence.



> I'm AWFUL at playing horror games. Seriously, my partner tries to get me to play them and I end up screaming the place down (and worrying the neighbours). Again, I think it triggers my anxiety. I love watching other people play them though. xD


It's funny, I'm a hell of a lot more calm playing them myself than watching. When I'm playing, I feel like I have a sense of "control" if that makes sense.



> I love violent anime (Hellsing is awesome ^_^).


Hellsing was good. Hellsing Ultimate was not half bad either. Some of it kind of jarred me, though, namely the death of Rip van Winkle. I had to look away. 

I loved the characters. By love, I mean I say I believe they were well-written. I liked Integra the most. Seras I found extremely irritating in the beginning, but when she "matured" towards the end I actually grew to respect her. Alucard I have a love-hate sort of deal with.



> My favourite kind of horror is by far psychological horror. I LOVE that genre (my favourite!) Slashers kinda bore me tbh, I actually prefer thrillers too.


Oooh same. Psychological horror ftw.


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I'm starting to get miffed about Beta being shut down. It's like the landlord came in and put an eviction notice on my door. Ugh.
> 
> So how are you, Gammas?


Yeah, the shit in there is getting old, too. I agree it needed to be closed for a bit, even if it was jarring to those of us who were having civil conversation.


----------



## Graveyard

Hello? Am I welcome here? Can I share my cookies with these kind, kind gammas?


----------



## karmachameleon

The mods are probably mostly alpha.  
@ShieldMaiden @The Perfect Storm And slapstick humor does nothing to me. I heard a theory that alpha and gamma usually like slapstick humor, while delta and beta likes more 'sophisticated humor'. Or it was more of an observation from that person.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> I assume you meant instincts here.
> 
> I can't speak for you, but my dominant instinct(Sx) is determined by my general focus in life(to have a deep energetic charge in my relationships, for example), not specifically how I look at myself through a certain lens(such as when you're projecting your ideal partner onto yourself, which you seem to imply), because there's really only one lens to look through imo. You are saying that one's instinctual focus determines one's overarching type, which makes no sense.


I'd consider it more like a multiplier. Instinct * enneatype = whole, where instinct is equivocal to functions and ennatype is equivocal to elements.


----------



## Verity

Jeremy8419 said:


> I'd consider it more like a multiplier. Instinct * enneatype = whole, where instinct is equivocal to functions and ennatype is equivocal to elements.


Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but you're either attributing too much to the instinct or you're not talking about instinct in the context of Enneagram. In either case, it makes no sense. The underlying preference that I've labeled as my instinct may not be rigid enough to never move, but like my sociotype or enneagram it's still a mix of my observations about my thoughts, emotions and beliefs inside the overarching pattern of my personal history(every observation is a static snapshot, but several snapshots creates a dynamic pattern). I don't understand your need to try to build bridges where there is only water.


----------



## Verity

To_august said:


> Yeah, I also wonder what it means and whether it was intentionally left ambiguous so it could be played differently depending on future circumstances. Vader was on the quest to eliminate the Jedi, which he didn't finish, maybe it's just that, or yes, something as general as conquering the Universe. Unless it's something to do with bringing-balance-to-the-force filmmakers wanted to tinker with once more. They could have made Snoke reinterpret it to Kylo so as to convince him of higher destiny due to him extending the line of the person conceived by force and being the carrier of pure force both light and dark. Maybe even to start the new line or order/cult of some sort on the basis of Snoke's interpretation of the dark side of the force usage.
> 
> I recently found this, and it seems that the most realistic of Snoke's goals is just to train Kylo so as to use him as a weapon against Luke. It's not clear why Snoke is specifically afraid of him though and why he failed to finish Luke off (is he too weak for this somehow?), in case he ever tried to do it ofc. Also how much of this is known to Kylo and how much he's aware of importance and his own role in Snoke's plans? There is a pregnant pause between him and Han when the latter tells that Kylo knows it's true that Snoke uses him. Or maybe that's nothing, maybe he is just too absorbed in Snoke's preachings, or even has a plan of his own on how to use the situation to his benefit.
> 
> I agree, there has to be some development to the character in the vein of Kylo going deeper to the dark side and having more inner tension, feeling the pull towards the light, throwing more tantrums, bringing more rage and conflict. I do think there must be a redemption for Kylo. I don't expect it to be something happy and cheesy (at least I hope that Disney wouldn't be too Disney about 'happy-endings'), but rather a believable redemption arc for a turbulent character.


It's times like these where I wish I was a bigger nerd than I am. It's pretty hard to tell what separates the Dark Side from the Sith in order to better understand Snoke's motivations and his relationship to Kylo, and even then you have to parse through what is canon and not, and even then they might retcon things to suit the new story. Good catch on the differances in the novelization.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but you're either attributing too much to the instinct or you're not talking about instinct in the context of Enneagram. In either case, it makes no sense. The underlying preference that I've labeled as my instinct may not be rigid enough to never move, but like my sociotype or enneagram it's still a mix of my observations about my thoughts, emotions and beliefs inside the overarching pattern of my personal history(every observation is a static snapshot, but several snapshots creates a dynamic pattern). I don't understand your need to try to build bridges where there is only water.


Ocrams razor or CD cog style.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> True greatness is to feel the flames of your passion, to dance with the fire, to live in it, to fully embrace the primal forces of destruction and creation, and not be burned to a cinder, to survive, even prosper, because you loved the flame, used the flame, but did not allow yourself to become consumed by it. This is what it means to be truly great.
> 
> Name that quote! XD


"There I drank life because death was in the pool."


"Not often them. The hrossa would be bent hrossa if they let him get so near. Long before he had come down so far we should have sought him out. No, Hmân, it is not a few deaths roving the world around him that make a hnau miserable. It is a bent hnau that would blacken the world. And I say also this. I do not think the forest would be so bright, nor the water so warm, nor love so sweet, if there were no danger in the lakes. I will tell you a day in my life that has shaped me; such a day as comes only once, like love, or serving Oyarsa in Meldilorn. Then I was young, not much more than a cub, when I went far, far up the handramit to the land where stars shine at midday and even water is cold. A great waterfall I climbed. I stood on the shore of Balki the pool, which is the place of most awe in all worlds. The walls of it go up for ever and ever and huge and holy images are cut in them, the work of old times. There is the fall called the Mountain of Water. Because I have stood there alone, Maleldil and I, for even Oyarsa sent me no word, my heart has been higher, my song deeper, all my days. But do you think it would have been so unless I had known that in Balki hnéraki dwelled? There I drank life because death was in the pool. ."

-Out of the Silent Planet by CS Lewis


A lot of words you don't know. lol. Basically this alien is talking about hunting a dangerous animal and that is the thrill. And to say a person or thing is "bent" is to mean they are unethical or stupid. Humans are "bent".


----------



## Verity

Jeremy8419 said:


> Ocrams razor or CD cog style.


Congrats, with that interpretation you can narrow your type down to ILE, LSI, SEE or EII.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Verity said:


> Congrats, with that interpretation you can narrow your type down to ILE, LSI, SEE or EII.


? I already know it lol.


----------



## Immolate

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> True greatness is to feel the flames of your passion, to dance with the fire, to live in it, to fully embrace the primal forces of destruction and creation, and not be burned to a cinder, to survive, even prosper, because you loved the flame, used the flame, but did not allow yourself to become consumed by it. This is what it means to be truly great.
> 
> Name that quote! XD


Alas, I had to google.

The conversation brought to mind this song:


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Your description of Sx is intense. Now I question if I am more So or Sx.


You're so first I believe. Sx may be close, but it seems your So instinct is a pretty prime motivator.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Does it mean Sx may be likely to do a lot of drugs and shit?

Sx:







I am, I am, I am
I said I wanna get next to you
I said I gonna get close to you
You wouldn't want me have to hurt you too, hurt you too?

I ain't, I ain't, I ain't
A buyin' into your apathy
I'm gonna learn ya my philosophy
You wanna know about atrocity, atrocity?

I know you want what's on my mind
I know you like what's on my mind
I know it eats you up inside
I know, you know, you know, you know

I am a man, a man
I'll give ya somethin' that ya won't forget
I said ya shouldn't have worn that dress
I said ya shouldn't have worn that dress

I know you want what's on my mind
I know you like what's on my mind
I know it eats you up inside
I know, you know, you know, you know

Here I come, I come, I come

I am, I am, I am
I said I wanna get next to you
I said I gonna get close to you
You wouldn't want me have to hurt you too, hurt you too?

I know you want what's on my mind
I know you like what's on my mind
I know it eats you up inside
I know, you know, you know, you know
I know you want what's on my mind
I know you like what's on my mind
I know it eats you up inside
I know, you know, you know, you know

Here I come, I come, I come
Here I come, I come, I come
Here I come, I come, I come
Here I come, I come, I come​


----------



## FearAndTrembling

And this is one of the best. Crank it when you get the chance.







Some days it don't come easy
Some days it don't come hard
Some days it don't come at all, and these are the days that never end
Some nights you're breathing fire
Some nights you're carved in ice
Some nights you're like nothing I've ever seen before or will again

Maybe I'm lonely, that's all I'm qualified to be
That's just one and only, the one and only promise I can keep

As long as the wheels are turning
As long as the fires are burning
As long as your prayers are coming true
You'd better believe it, that I would do​


----------



## Immolate

@FearAndTrembling lol






Am I
Am I still tough enough?
Feels like I'm wearing down, down, down, down, down
Is my viciousness
Losing ground, ground, ground, ground ground?
Am I taking too much
Did I cross a line, line, line?
I need my role in this
Very clearly defined

I need your discipline
I need your help
I need your discipline
You know once I start I cannot help myself

And now it's starting up
Feels like I'm losing touch
Nothing matters to me
Nothing matters as much

I see you left a mark
Up and down my skin
I don't know where I end
And where you begin

I need your discipline
I need your help
I need your discipline
You know once I start I cannot help myself

I. Can. Not. Stop. Myself.
Once I start I cannot stop myself
And you.
Once I start I cannot stop myself
And you know.
Once I start I cannot stop myself
And you.
Once I start I cannot stop myself
And you know.
Once I start I cannot stop myself

I need your discipline
(And you)
I need your help
(Once I start I cannot stop myself)
I need your discipline
(And you know)
Because once I start I cannot stop myself
I need your discipline
(And you)
I need your help
(Once I start I cannot stop myself)
I need your discipline
(And you know)
Because once I start I cannot stop myself


----------



## FearAndTrembling

lets mosey said:


> @_FearAndTrembling_ lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I
> Am I still tough enough?
> Feels like I'm wearing down, down, down, down, down
> Is my viciousness
> Losing ground, ground, ground, ground ground?
> Am I taking too much
> Did I cross a line, line, line?
> I need my role in this
> Very clearly defined
> 
> I need your discipline
> I need your help
> I need your discipline
> You know once I start I cannot help myself
> 
> And now it's starting up
> Feels like I'm losing touch
> Nothing matters to me
> Nothing matters as much
> 
> I see you left a mark
> Up and down my skin
> I don't know where I end
> And where you begin
> 
> I need your discipline
> I need your help
> I need your discipline
> You know once I start I cannot help myself
> 
> I. Can. Not. Stop. Myself.
> Once I start I cannot stop myself
> And you.
> Once I start I cannot stop myself
> And you know.
> Once I start I cannot stop myself
> And you.
> Once I start I cannot stop myself
> And you know.
> Once I start I cannot stop myself
> 
> I need your discipline
> (And you)
> I need your help
> (Once I start I cannot stop myself)
> I need your discipline
> (And you know)
> Because once I start I cannot stop myself
> I need your discipline
> (And you)
> I need your help
> (Once I start I cannot stop myself)
> I need your discipline
> (And you know)
> Because once I start I cannot stop myself



Good example. I used Start Me Up by the Stones as an example. Similar theme.

"Start me up and I'll never stop."









And Everlong again. "The only thing I ever ask of you is to promise not to stop when I say 'when'"








There's one thing baby
That I don't understand
You keep on telling me
I ain't your kind of man
Ain't I rough enough, ooh baby
Ain't I tough enough?​


----------



## FearAndTrembling

lets mosey said:


> @_FearAndTrembling_ lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I
> Am I still tough enough?
> Feels like I'm wearing down, down, down, down, down
> Is my viciousness
> Losing ground, ground, ground, ground ground?
> Am I taking too much
> Did I cross a line, line, line?
> I need my role in this
> Very clearly defined
> 
> I need your discipline
> I need your help
> I need your discipline
> You know once I start I cannot help myself
> 
> And now it's starting up
> Feels like I'm losing touch
> Nothing matters to me
> Nothing matters as much
> 
> I see you left a mark
> Up and down my skin
> I don't know where I end
> And where you begin
> 
> I need your discipline
> I need your help
> I need your discipline
> You know once I start I cannot help myself
> 
> I. Can. Not. Stop. Myself.
> Once I start I cannot stop myself
> And you.
> Once I start I cannot stop myself
> And you know.
> Once I start I cannot stop myself
> And you.
> Once I start I cannot stop myself
> And you know.
> Once I start I cannot stop myself
> 
> I need your discipline
> (And you)
> I need your help
> (Once I start I cannot stop myself)
> I need your discipline
> (And you know)
> Because once I start I cannot stop myself
> I need your discipline
> (And you)
> I need your help
> (Once I start I cannot stop myself)
> I need your discipline
> (And you know)
> Because once I start I cannot stop myself


I really relate to needing discipline. I need to be controlled. Or at least have somebody try. lol. And that is what Everlong is saying, "Don't Stop when I say when". Try to overtake me. Coward. lol

The best counselor I had dropped the hammer on me. She was using Te or Se. Or something. But she does not put up with my shit and takes control.


And one more. I can't slow down. No brakes. Somebody stole the handle.






In the shuffling madness
Of the locomotive breath,
Runs the all-time loser,
Headlong to his death.
He feels the piston scraping --
Steam breaking on his brow --
Thank God, he stole the handle and
The train won't stop going --
No way to slow down.
He sees his children jumping off
At the stations -- one by one.
His woman and his best friend --
In bed and having fun.
He's crawling down the corridor
On his hands and knees --
Old Charlie stole the handle and
The train won't stop going --
No way to slow down.
He hears the silence howling --
Catches angels as they fall.
And the all-time winner
Has got him by the balls.
He picks up Gideon's Bible --
Open at page one --
God stole the handle and
The train won't stop going --
No way to slow down.​


----------



## SheWolf

And the Betas have overrun Gamma now.

Typical. Lmao.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Is Grace Jones Sx here? lol. Somebody break down type relations. 

It appears Jones is Se valuing of some kind. lol. And the princess in her bubble world is Alpha or Delta. What do you guys think?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ShieldMaiden said:


> And the Betas have overrun Gamma now.
> 
> Typical. Lmao.


The party becomes too big when Betas show up. I hung out with a ton of alphas. They like to party and have some fun. He's throwing a party at his beach house. Say there are a hundred people there. Once this certain group shows up to make it 110 the party is now too big lol. It must be shut down now. If certain people hear about it means it has officially gotten out of hand. They are an element he doesn't want there and will shut down the party if they show up. It is a kind of scummy crowd but still.


----------



## SheWolf

FearAndTrembling said:


> ShieldMaiden said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Betas have overrun Gamma now.
> 
> Typical. Lmao.
> 
> 
> 
> The party becomes too big when Betas show up. I hung out with a ton of alphas. They like to party and have some fun. He's throwing a party at his beach house. Say there are a hundred people there. Once this certain group shows up to make it 110 the party is now too big lol. It must be shut down now. If certain people hear about it means it has officially gotten out of hand. They are an element he doesn't want there and will shut down the party if they show up. It is a kind of scummy crowd but still.
Click to expand...

Lol. I'll admit, Betas in a crowd are too much for me. On a personal level, most of them I like. Alphas I've found a bit flighty and it's hard to maintain their attention on a personal level.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ShieldMaiden said:


> Lol. I'll admit, Betas in a crowd are too much for me. On a personal level, most of them I like. Alphas I've found a bit flighty and it's hard to maintain their attention on a personal level.


A roommate I had got me into Hank Williams Jr. 

Everybody has their own family tradition. He says other country singers think he is too wild. He is going against their tradition. But I like how he says, "When I get stoned I am carrying on MY family tradition." lol. 

Country music singers have been a real close family,
But lately some of my kinfolks have disowned a few others and me.
I guess it's because I kind of changed my direction.
Lord I guess I went and broke their family tradition.

They get on me and want to know Hank why do you drink? Why do you roll smoke?
Why must you live out the songs that you wrote?
Over and over everybody makes my predictions.
So if I get stoned, I'm just carrying on an old family tradition.

I am very proud of my daddy's name
All though his kind of music and mine ain't exactly the same.
Stop and think it over. Put yourself in my position.
If I get stoned and sing all night long it's a family tradition.

So don't ask me, Hank why do you drink? Hank, why do you roll smoke?
Why must you live out the songs that you wrote?
If I'm down in a honky-tonk some ole slick's trying to give me friction.
I said leave me alone I'm singing all night long it's a family tradition.

Lord I have loved some ladies and I have loved Jim Beam
And they both tried to kill me in 1973.
When that doctor asked me, Son how did you get in this condition?
I said, hey sawbones, I'm just carrying on an ole family tradition.

So don't ask me, Hank why do you drink? Hank, why do roll smoke?
Why must you live out the songs that you wrote?
Stop and think it over, try and put yourself in my unique position.
If I get stoned and sing all night long, it's a family tradition!


​




And how he talks about all his old country friends have settled down. Like Kris Kristofferson and Johnny Cash. Johnny Cash don't act like did back in 68. Kris is a movie star and moved off to LA.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

A hrossa, yeah? reminds me of this. I found this tumblr gold and had to share it. Blew my f*cking mind - Imgur
And this:


----------



## SheWolf

Ugh. I need a friggin haircut.


----------



## Metalize

Most people think I'm in the Gamma quadra so here I am.

Wonder why it's quadra and not quadrant.


----------



## SheWolf

Metalize said:


> Most people think I'm in the Gamma quadra so here I am.
> 
> Wonder why it's quadra and not quadrant.


Greetings. Nice avatar.


----------



## Metalize

ShieldMaiden said:


> Greetings. Nice avatar.


Thank you. I've always liked your name. :tongue:


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ShieldMaiden said:


> Ugh. I need a friggin haircut.



I think most women could use a hair cut.


----------



## Metalize

I've been very pleased with mine. 9/10 would recommend everyone to try it just once (-1 for awkward adjustment period). And I plan to keep it. 

It's funny because everyone was encouraging me _not_ to do it because face doesn't work with short hair or something, but once I did, it was fairly obvious it looked better that way.


----------



## SheWolf

Metalize said:


> I've been very pleased with mine. 9/10 would recommend everyone to try it just once (-1 for awkward adjustment period). And I plan to keep it.
> 
> It's funny because everyone was encouraging me _not_ to do it because face doesn't work with short hair or something, but once I did, it was fairly obvious it looked better that way.


I wish I could pull off pixie short. But yeah, nah, especially since my hair is actually naturally curly.
I'm just thinking shoulder length or a little above. I actually wear wigs every now and again anyway. I don't know how the hell people stand having very long hair.


----------



## Max

Metalize said:


> I've been very pleased with mine. 9/10 would recommend everyone to try it just once (-1 for awkward adjustment period). And I plan to keep it.
> 
> It's funny because everyone was encouraging me _not_ to do it because face doesn't work with short hair or something, but once I did, it was fairly obvious it looked better that way.


I used to have long hair too and I'm never ever going back to it. I want to actually try and pull off an army style buzz cut lol. I think that would be interesting. And a shirt and shorts.


----------



## SheWolf

For whatever reason though I find men with long hair pretty hot  I don't know why.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

ShieldMaiden said:


> For whatever reason though I find men with long hair pretty hot  I don't know why.



They are punks. No room for them in heaven. 






And the sign says "Long-haired freaky people need not apply"
So I put my hair up under my hat and I went in to ask him why
He said you look like a fine outstanding young man, I think you'll do
So I took off my hat, I said "Imagine that, huh, me working for you"

And the sign says "Anybody caught trespassing will be shot on sight"
So I jumped the fence and I yelled at the house
Hey! What gives you the right!
To put up a fence and keep me out, or to keep Mother Nature in
If God was here, he'd tell it to your face, man, you're some kind of sinner​


----------



## Metalize

ShieldMaiden said:


> I wish I could pull off pixie short. But yeah, nah, especially since my hair is actually naturally curly.
> I'm just thinking shoulder length or a little above. I actually wear wigs every now and again anyway. I don't know how the hell people stand having very long hair.


My hair's on the curly side too, which is why they thought it wouldn't work. When I brought in the picture I printed as a reference for the stylist, he looked at it and told me that it won't look like the pic because that person had straight hair. But it still turned out pretty good, similar to this except that I brush the curls downwards.


* *

















What was interesting is that for a while, my hair was getting greasy very quickly if I didn't wash it nearly every day (which you're typically not supposed to do). I've read this happens because the follicles are used to excreting a certain amount of oil per length, and once the length is mostly gone it takes time to adjust. It was partly good in that it kept the frizz/dryness away. Most people thought my hair would stick straight up once I cut it, but it only did that sometimes, and it was nothing I couldn't use a bit of hairgel on. 

That's cool about the wigs though, I'm not familiar with those at all.


----------



## SheWolf

FearAndTrembling said:


> They are punks. No room for them in heaven.


Well, Hell must be full of guys with nice hair  must not be that bad of a place.


----------



## Metalize

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> I used to have long hair too and I'm never ever going back to it. I want to actually try and pull off an army style buzz cut lol. I think that would be interesting. And a shirt and shorts.


Lol, that's pretty ambitious. But I'm sure it would be an interesting experience to have. 

I hate that womens' shorts tend to be way too short (at least from the usual retailers). I like it just above knee-length and those are pretty hard to find.


----------



## SheWolf

Metalize said:


> Lol, that's pretty ambitious. But I'm sure it would be an interesting experience to have.
> 
> I hate that womens' shorts tend to be way too short (at least from the usual retailers). I like it just above knee-length and those are pretty hard to find.


I hate shorts. Period. But when I do wear them, yup, just above knee length.

My favorite thing to wear in the summer though is maxi skirts/dresses. Much more movable.


----------



## SheWolf

Metalize said:


> My hair's on the curly side too, which is why they thought it wouldn't work. When I brought in the picture I printed as a reference for the stylist, he looked at it and told me that it won't look like the pic because that person had straight hair. But it still turned out pretty good, similar to this except that I brush the curls downwards.
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What was interesting is that for a while, my hair was getting greasy very quickly if I didn't wash it nearly every day (which you're typically not supposed to do). I've read this happens because the follicles are used to excreting a certain amount of oil per length, and once the length is mostly gone it takes time to adjust. It was partly good in that it kept the frizz/dryness away. Most people thought my hair would stick straight up once I cut it, but it only did that sometimes, and it was nothing I couldn't use a bit of hairgel on.
> 
> That's cool about the wigs though, I'm not familiar with those at all.


Yeah. I have to use some gel in my curls. I often straighten my hair heatlessly though. It's easier and I don't have to touch up my hair as often.

If I got mine cut real short, I would want it to look like this.

* *















I also love undercuts.


* *














The big reason I want it cut is because it's so high maintenance. Though, last time I got it that short my friends said I looked like a fairy princess. Nice I guess, but definitely not the look I want. Lol.

Wigs are nice when you want a change without commitment. A lot of my wigs are unnaturally colored since I really can't bleach my own hair.


----------



## Max

Metalize said:


> Lol, that's pretty ambitious. But I'm sure it would be an interesting experience to have.
> 
> I hate that womens' shorts tend to be way too short (at least from the usual retailers). I like it just above knee-length and those are pretty hard to find.


Yeah I know right? I wanna experiment with the "macho" look lol. And yeah, I just order my shorts cheap off online. Been wanting some decent sized khakis and a belt for a long time haha.


----------



## SheWolf

I got an early birthday present: a gift card to Barnes and Noble. I could literally spend a fortune in there. I adore book stores. :heart:


----------



## Strife

any gammas left?


----------



## Mr inappropriate

ShieldMaiden said:


> I hate shorts. Period. But when I do wear them, yup, just above knee length.
> 
> My favorite thing to wear in the summer though is maxi skirts/dresses. Much more movable.





> Yeah. I have to use some gel in my curls. I often straighten my hair heatlessly though. It's easier and I don't have to touch up my hair as often.


I do personal styling as a Si-dom. Special discount to PerC members !! :wink:


----------



## SheWolf

crashbandicoot said:


> ShieldMaiden said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate shorts. Period. But when I do wear them, yup, just above knee length.
> 
> My favorite thing to wear in the summer though is maxi skirts/dresses. Much more movable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. I have to use some gel in my curls. I often straighten my hair heatlessly though. It's easier and I don't have to touch up my hair as often.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do personal styling as a Si-dom. Special discount to PerC members !!
Click to expand...

HAHAHA......


You're not getting anywhere near my hair. >_>


----------



## Apple Pine

It's so calm here.


----------



## SheWolf

Apple Pine said:


> It's so calm here.


Gammas don't make a fuss like Alphas and especially Betas.  Haha.


----------



## Vermillion

I was pissed off with my roommate for making me ill and then she went and got me a plate of cake from a party with this sweet smile on her face.

Now I can't even bring myself to be pissed off. Cake was too fucking good, man.

ESEs and their mysterious caretaking ways :laughing:


----------



## Vermillion

Night Huntress said:


> I was pissed off with my roommate for making me ill and then she went and got me a plate of cake from a party with this sweet smile on her face.
> 
> Now I can't even bring myself to be pissed off. Cake was too fucking good, man.
> 
> ESEs and their mysterious caretaking ways :laughing:



nvm, back to being pissed off. That took roughly an hour; guess she should have given me a stronger sugar high for the goodwill to last.


----------



## Entropic

Night Huntress said:


> nvm, back to being pissed off. That took roughly an hour; guess she should have given me a stronger sugar high for the goodwill to last.


That's why I told you that you're really a sour person roud:


----------



## Vermillion

Entropic said:


> That's why I told you that you're really a sour person roud:


Point taken.


----------



## Graveyard

QueenOfNight said:


> Gammas don't make a fuss like Alphas and especially Betas.  Haha.


...but I thought you liked us.


----------



## SheWolf

Graveyard said:


> QueenOfNight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gammas don't make a fuss like Alphas and especially Betas.  Haha.
> 
> 
> 
> ...but I thought you liked us.
Click to expand...

Individually, yes. A group of Betas start to grate my nerves XD


----------



## Graveyard

QueenOfNight said:


> Individually, yes. A group of Betas start to grate my nerves XD


Hm, alright. That's fair enough.


----------



## SheWolf

Graveyard said:


> QueenOfNight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Individually, yes. A group of Betas start to grate my nerves XD
> 
> 
> 
> Hm, alright. That's fair enough.
Click to expand...

Just kind of gets to rowdy. Like ya'll need to chill out a bit. Haha.


----------



## Graveyard

QueenOfNight said:


> Just kind of gets to rowdy. Like ya'll need to chill out a bit. Haha.


Hahah, I'm actually too chill. I should work myself up a little, but I do have a sweet tooth for drama. <3


----------



## SheWolf

Graveyard said:


> QueenOfNight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just kind of gets to rowdy. Like ya'll need to chill out a bit. Haha.
> 
> 
> 
> Hahah, I'm actually too chill. I should work myself up a little, but I do have a sweet tooth for drama.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't care about drama. At all.


----------



## SheWolf

Gah. I fucking hate going out with my mom and sister.


----------



## SheWolf

Seriously. They bitch at me that I need to be less moody and lighten up because I ruin their immature "fun."
I think they need to grow up.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Heh. Drama can be fun. Liven things up, get the blood pumping, helps to get stuff done. Can be irritating when overdone tho, or when someone is being legitimately douchey, or stuff like that. I'd rather avoid it if there isn't going to be a good resolution that, you know, accomplishes something. Of course, getting my blood pumping enough to go out and do shit is enough of an accomplishment, so even if the people involved don't intend to accomplish something the drama can still accomplish a thing anyway. Life's a lot like that, actually. You can take what is happening now as a means, or a tool, or an end. Use what is to change what will be, ya dig?


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Heh. Drama can be fun. Liven things up, get the blood pumping, helps to get stuff done. Can be irritating when overdone tho, or when someone is being legitimately douchey, or stuff like that. I'd rather avoid it if there isn't going to be a good resolution that, you know, accomplishes something. Of course, getting my blood pumping enough to go out and do shit is enough of an accomplishment, so even if the people involved don't intend to accomplish something the drama can still accomplish a thing anyway. Life's a lot like that, actually. You can take what is happening now as a means, or a tool, or an end. Use what is to change what will be, ya dig?


I don't give a shit about it though. Reminds me of the shit my family pulls... "liven things up" to me equals doing shit just to get a rise out of people. They see me as a "party pooper" whereas I see them as being immature. 
@The Perfect Storm @Mordred Phantom

Since Beta is sinking again, I'll continue the discussion about relationships here.

But yeah, I've always been the black sheep of my family. I kept to myself, forging closer bonds with my oldest sister and dad. My mother some, too. But, for the most part (with the exception of my oldest sister) often think I'm weird and ridicule everything I enjoy. -_-" It gets irritating very quickly.


----------



## Verity

I don't think I've ever met someone who says they really enjoy drama. Ironically, the people who proclaim their annoyance at it the most also tend to be the most dramatic in my experience. 

If drama is a consequence of someone expressing their honest opinion it can serve to clear the air. Better to let things out directly than to supress them, imo.


----------



## SheWolf

Hey, before I forget...

Anyone interested in keeping in contact with me I recommend adding me on Skype. I've noticed my activity in here is beginning to dwindle. I'll check in still, but not as often.


----------



## counterintuitive

Verity said:


> I don't think I've ever met someone who says they really enjoy drama. Ironically, the people who proclaim their annoyance at it the most also tend to be the most dramatic in my experience.


Lol, this is exactly my experience too. The people who complain about the drama in their lives the most also seem to act in a manner that creates said drama. I somehow seem to get through most of my life with very little drama. Lol.



Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Heh. Drama can be fun. Liven things up, get the blood pumping, helps to get stuff done. Can be irritating when overdone tho, or when someone is being legitimately douchey, or stuff like that. I'd rather avoid it if there isn't going to be a good resolution that, you know, accomplishes something. Of course, getting my blood pumping enough to go out and do shit is enough of an accomplishment, so even if the people involved don't intend to accomplish something the drama can still accomplish a thing anyway. Life's a lot like that, actually. You can take what is happening now as a means, or a tool, or an end. Use what is to change what will be, ya dig?


I can see the use of drama sometimes, yeah. It's a tool to be used in certain contexts. But, I think that's an Fe-valuing perspective (both what I just said and what you said here). Because what I'm "using" is influence of people's emotional states to achieve a certain goal. Influencing people's emotional states negatively, in my case. Sometimes upset can be useful towards certain ends.


----------



## SheWolf

counterintuitive said:


> Lol, this is exactly my experience too. The people who complain about the drama in their lives the most also seem to act in a manner that creates said drama. I somehow seem to get through most of my life with very little drama. Lol.


I do think there's a difference between being dramatic and consciously/actively seeking to create it, though.





counterintuitive said:


> I can see the use of drama sometimes, yeah. It's a tool to be used in certain contexts. But, I think that's an Fe-valuing perspective (both what I just said and what you said here). Because what I'm "using" is influence of people's emotional states to achieve a certain goal. Influencing people's emotional states negatively, in my case. Sometimes upset can be useful towards certain ends.


I mean no offense, but saying it like that makes me wrinkle my nose, as it seems quite shallow. I don't quite understand what you mean, though.


----------



## counterintuitive

QueenOfNight said:


> I do think there's a difference between being dramatic and consciously/actively seeking to create it, though.


Oh, that's true. I'm not sure most of them were actively creating it. It just seemed to follow them. Though I could see why it was following them.



> I mean no offense, but saying it like that makes me wrinkle my nose, as it seems quite shallow. I don't quite understand what you mean, though.


Yeah, it's quite shallow. I don't do it much, though, because I'm just not that good at manipulating people's emotional states, though I can kinda half-manage it at times.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

I'd consider it shallow to NOT see the impact behind the things that are going on. -_-


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I'd consider it shallow to NOT see the impact behind the things that are going on. -_-


As in?


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Person A is crying. Person B is talking about their trip they took last week, and mentioning the beautiful sights. Person C is uncomfortable, fiddling with his phone. Person C is about to shout at Person B because Person C feels it is wrong to talk like that while someone is sad. Person A is cheering up because of Person B. Person B just wants Person A to be happy.

This situation can be read like a book. Someone who is unable to see what is going on here, why each person behaves in this way...that I would consider shallow. Or perhaps self absorbed would be a better term.


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Person A is crying. Person B is talking about their trip they took last week, and mentioning the beautiful sights. Person C is uncomfortable, fiddling with his phone. Person C is about to shout at Person B because Person C feels it is wrong to talk like that while someone is sad. Person A is cheering up because of Person B. Person B just wants Person A to be happy.
> 
> This situation can be read like a book. Someone who is unable to see what is going on here, why each person behaves in this way...that I would consider shallow. Or perhaps self absorbed would be a better term.


I think that's a bit different than the shallow I was describing.


But I understand completely what you're saying here.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Fair enough


----------



## Verity

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Person A is crying. Person B is talking about their trip they took last week, and mentioning the beautiful sights. Person C is uncomfortable, fiddling with his phone. Person C is about to shout at Person B because Person C feels it is wrong to talk like that while someone is sad. Person A is cheering up because of Person B. Person B just wants Person A to be happy.
> 
> This situation can be read like a book. Someone who is unable to see what is going on here, why each person behaves in this way...that I would consider shallow. Or perhaps self absorbed would be a better term.


There's a difference between having a shallow understanding of something and being shallow as a person.


----------



## counterintuitive

Is there anything "wrong" with being shallow as a person, though? I'm a very shallow person - to be more precise, I'm very superficial and tend not to look beyond the surface of things or their surface similarities to other things. I'm a 'skimmer' - I skim off the best of things and discard the rest.  I don't see what's "wrong" about that. It's not hurting anyone else.


----------



## Verity

counterintuitive said:


> Is there anything "wrong" with being shallow as a person, though? I'm a very shallow person - to be more precise, I'm very superficial and tend not to look beyond the surface of things or their surface similarities to other things. I'm a 'skimmer' - I skim off the best of things and discard the rest.  I don't see what's "wrong" about that. It's not hurting anyone else.


I generally think shallowness becomes a problem when it is at the expense of honesty, and like you said, when it hurts others. Everyone is shallow to some degree.

Btw, if you were truly shallow, you wouldn't have asked that question.


----------



## SheWolf

Verity said:


> I generally think shallowness becomes a problem when it is at the expense of honesty, and like you said, when it hurts others. Everyone is shallow to some degree.


Well, there might be an issue since people seem to have differing opinions, to some degree, on what might hurt others and what won't.


----------



## counterintuitive

Verity said:


> I generally think shallowness becomes a problem when it is at the expense of honesty, and like you said, when it hurts others. Everyone is shallow to some degree.


Well, what's honesty? Most people think I'm a chronic liar because they ask me questions like "What do you value?" and other introspective kinds of questions, and due to my shallowness/superficiality, I can't really answer. Lol. I just answer honestly that I don't know what I value, because I've never thought about it or cared enough to think about it. I basically don't think about myself or what I find important at all. But if I say that, they perceive me as dishonest. If I make something up, aka lie, they perceive me as honest!



> Btw, if you were truly shallow, you wouldn't have asked that question.


Please don't try to tell me whether I'm shallow or not.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

I'd still consider it shallow, yes, but shallowness is not some horrible incurable evil or something. I'd just say said person should pay more attention, at least enough to know that there is something up. I don't expect people to know what to do about it or anything. Just...pay attention to your fellow man. Respect others enough to have a sense of what's going on with them.

Meh. It doesn't matter. I'll shut up on it.


----------



## Verity

QueenOfNight said:


> Well, there might be an issue since people seem to have differing opinions, to some degree, on what might hurt others and what won't.


What one considers shallow is partly a subjective matter, so how one is theoretically hurt by it is by extension too, yes.



counterintuitive said:


> Well, what's honesty? Most people think I'm a chronic liar because they ask me questions like "What do you value?" and other introspective kinds of questions, and due to my shallowness/superficiality, I can't really answer. Lol. I just answer honestly that I don't know what I value, because I've never thought about it or cared enough to think about it. I basically don't think about myself or what I find important at all. But if I say that, they perceive me as dishonest. If I make something up, aka lie, they perceive me as honest!
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't try to tell me whether I'm shallow or not.


Are you asking me for my opinion or for the definition of honesty?


----------



## counterintuitive

Verity said:


> Are you asking me for my opinion or for the definition of honesty?


Neither, really. Already bored of this slow-paced discussion lol sorry.


----------



## SheWolf

@Fenix Wulfheart

May be kind of a silly question, but I've heard hypochondria is related to have low Si. What do you think? Any correlation?


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

@QueenOfNight
I would think so, yeah. Not always, but sometimes. Like, correlation not causation lol.
That makes me question the type me and my mom decided she probably is. :L
Meh. Man, I'm out of it right now.


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> @QueenOfNight
> I would think so, yeah. Not always, but sometimes. Like, correlation not causation lol.
> That makes me question the type me and my mom decided she probably is. :L
> Meh. Man, I'm out of it right now.


I remember someone telling my that its related to lower Sensing in general. I was just wondering, because I'm pretty hypochondral myself. Even since I was little. My ESE mom and SEI sister don't have this at all.


----------



## Entropic

Jung attributed hypochondria in general to weak sensation, but I don't think he meant the general "I am kind of worried of getting sick" style of hypochondria people experience and express as hypochondria in everyday life, but people who really are hypochondriac as a neurosis. I actually saw an example of this quite recently where an IEE coworker of mine was scared of getting sick and went so far as to cut open onions in his home because he has heard that doing that helps to kill bacteria. That is the beginning of a mild neurotic tendency because he actually took serious action due to feelings of paranoia. I do think his reaction is a great example of the kind of hypochondria Jung spoke of with regards to intuitive types and especially Ne doms, but I also think his instance is fairly rare and doesn't have to manifest that way. 

I'm weak Si but since I'm Ni, I often entirely ignore these things and can have moments like not realizing I have had a headache for hours to later realize that I do and when I do I can't stop focusing on it. Ne egos often want to avoid feeling physical discomfort, which is why it can manifest as hypochondriac tendencies as a way to preserve their own health and physical integrity.


----------



## AdInfinitum

Entropic said:


> Jung attributed hypochondria in general to weak sensation, but I don't think he meant the general "I am kind of worried of getting sick" style of hypochondria people experience and express as hypochondria in everyday life, but people who really are hypochondriac as a neurosis. I actually saw an example of this quite recently where an IEE coworker of mine was scared of getting sick and went so far as to cut open onions in his home because he has heard that doing that helps to kill bacteria. That is the beginning of a mild neurotic tendency because he actually took serious action due to feelings of paranoia. I do think his reaction is a great example of the kind of hypochondria Jung spoke of with regards to intuitive types and especially Ne doms, but I also think his instance is fairly rare and doesn't have to manifest that way.
> 
> I'm weak Si but since I'm Ni, I often entirely ignore these things and can have moments like not realizing I have had a headache for hours to later realize that I do and when I do I can't stop focusing on it. Ne egos often want to avoid feeling physical discomfort, which is why it can manifest as hypochondriac tendencies as a way to preserve their own health and physical integrity.


I also get the feeling high Si types tend to sense the barrier between the actual effect of these pieces of advice (the onions example) and the inquired one, I see a fair amount of people knowing when to draw the line between the reality of body effects and overall lies; I usually need to take a step back and analyze the article talking about the miraculous effect of onions on my health because I can envision it happening or because it sounds like an interesting idea and I can already see myself miraculously healed, in a shiny armor ready not to ever worry about my body ever again. (It could be weak thinking too though) It feels to me as if realism is just such a rusty wheel to actually get a grasp on in terms of sensation overall.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

I think that I have an easier time getting along with Betas than Deltas, specially if the dude that I pissed off yesterday is indeed a potato NF lol gotta love that this dude tried to drag a friend into his BS, and then claimed that he didn't know why anyone liked me lmao salty dude much (tumblr crap BTW)


----------



## SheWolf

Mordred Phantom said:


> I think that I have an easier time getting along with Betas than Deltas, specially if the dude that I pissed off yesterday is indeed a potato NF lol gotta love that this dude tried to drag a friend into his BS, and then claimed that he didn't know why anyone liked me lmao salty dude much (tumblr crap BTW)


I like Betas individually. In a group they become a bit annoying.

I like Deltas. ENFPs I sometimes have a bout of disagreement/uneasiness with, since they're my supervisor. 

I don't have any Alpha friends really. My mother and sister. But, they're family. Lol.


----------



## soseductive

counterintuitive said:


> Well, what's honesty? Most people think I'm a chronic liar because they ask me questions like "What do you value?" and other introspective kinds of questions, and due to my shallowness/superficiality, I can't really answer. Lol. I just answer honestly that I don't know what I value, because I've never thought about it or cared enough to think about it. I basically don't think about myself or what I find important at all. But if I say that, they perceive me as dishonest. If I make something up, aka lie, they perceive me as honest!
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't try to tell me whether I'm shallow or not.


Don't worry, i don't think you've ever been honest. Cheers)
Maybe, if you are so good at lying you are actually LIE? 



QueenOfNight said:


> I like Betas individually. In a group they become a bit annoying.
> 
> I like Deltas. ENFPs I sometimes have a bout of disagreement/uneasiness with, since they're my supervisor.
> 
> I don't have any Alpha friends really. My mother and sister. But, they're family. Lol.


I feel like i don't like almost anyone. There is something about almost every person that makes them annoying.


----------



## The_Wanderer

It's hard to say whether I prefer Deltas to Betas, as I have a number of friends in both quadras, but I certainly prefer the Delta atmosphere; which might just be because I've grown up in a country that has Delta values. I have friends (of varying degrees) of all SF and ST types. Most of the people I dislike or come into conflict with are male NFs and or Alpha NTs. 

I think a big reason I began to consider myself a Gamma SF rather than a Delta NF had to do with my generally iffy relationships with the whole NF club.



soseductive said:


> I feel like i don't like almost anyone. There is something about almost every person that makes them annoying.


Yah, but there's varying levels of annoying (and stupid).


----------



## soseductive

I feel like i will never be with a woman i love and this is just disgusting.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

soseductive said:


> I feel like i will never be with a woman i love and this is just disgusting.


I think love is disgusting. Like ewww, who fucking needs that ridicilous shit ?


----------



## soseductive

crashbandicoot said:


> I think love is disgusting. Like ewww, who fucking needs that ridicilous shit ?


I need it, man! I just feel like a really small dog in a shelter who tries to get her attention, but there's so much better ones and i am not even the breed of dogs that she likes.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

soseductive said:


> I need it, man! I just feel like a really small dog in a shelter who tries to get her attention, but there's so much better ones and i am not even the breed of dogs that she likes.


Sryy but she is in love with me ok ?

Do not attempt get between us :angry:


----------



## soseductive

crashbandicoot said:


> sryy but she is in love with me ok ?
> 
> Do not attempt get between us :angry:


gtfo)


----------



## Mr inappropriate

soseductive said:


> gtfo)


Sshh she likes nice guys, dont swear


----------



## SheWolf

crashbandicoot said:


> soseductive said:
> 
> 
> 
> gtfo)
> 
> 
> 
> Sshh she likes nice guys, dont swear
Click to expand...

Crash you're such a troll XD haha!


----------



## SheWolf

@Mordred Phantom

I think you might find this as amusing as I did.

And by amusing, I mean I about busted a gut laughing. :laughing:


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Lol. That was mildly amusing XD


----------



## SheWolf

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Lol. That was mildly amusing XD


The "I'm very tired" and the "MARK
ZUCKERBERG" parts were very hilarious. XD


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Good music for playing card games lol


----------



## soseductive

I feel like i am gonna get banned :sad:


----------



## soseductive

I feel like i am defective and can't fulfill my duties. Something is definitely wrong with me, but what? Do you hate me for something, guys?

EDIT1: I am not sure if someone would ever want to see me as their partner.

EDIT2: It's not like no one wants me, probably the opposite. It's more like i feel that even if i will start relationships with someone i like, then they will be disappointed with the results. And i don't know if it even worth bothering her, if i feel that i am not worth her time.


----------



## SheWolf

soseductive said:


> I feel like i am defective and can't fulfill my duties. Something is definitely wrong with me, but what? Do you hate me for something, guys?


I don't hate you.


----------



## SheWolf

When I hear someone talk shit about Linkin Park


----------



## soseductive

QueenOfNight said:


> I don't hate you.


Damn, no one hates me. If i am such a good guy, then what's wrong could be with me? Am i asking too many questions? Is asking questions bad?

EDIT: What means "your point is not very efficient"? I think some people love to play their type too much. Yesterday, i've seen "SEI" girl who said "i want to defend science from business" and i think it's just nuts. Even if you are from Alpha, you couldn't be that stupid.


----------



## soseductive

No one can thank my little brother before i do. No one!


----------



## Typhon

Why not make thread about it to see how each type responds? Why is it in gamma? etc.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

I read the letter and found it too long and pretentious for being about a loan. She could have simplified her rules and the reasons why she was wary of lending the money instead of writing that tl;dr thing.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Typhon said:


> Ayn Rand was beta ST, so I'm not sure what the connection is with gamma quadra?


I was curious about seeing how Fi will respond to it. Especially low order, xli and lxe . Delta is dead, so...

I dont care how other types see it. Just because the writer is beta doesnt mean it belongs to that thread or non appropiate for gamma thread.


----------



## Immolate

Not declaring a quadra. I just felt like commenting and posting the letter here in its entirety:



> To Connie Papurt, AR’s niece, a daughter of Frank’s sister, Agnes Papurt
> May 22, 1949
> 
> Dear Connie:
> 
> You are very young, so I don’t know whether you realize the seriousness of your action in writing to me for money. Since I don’t know you at all, I am going to put you to a test.
> 
> If you really want to borrow $25 from me, I will take a chance on finding out what kind of person you are. You want to borrow the money until your graduation. I will do better than that. I will make it easier for you to repay the debt, but on condition that you understand and accept it as a strict and serious business deal. *Before you borrow it, I want you to think it over very carefully.*
> 
> Here are my conditions: If I send you the $25, I will give you a year to repay it. I will give you six months after your graduation to get settled in a job. Then, you will start repaying the money in installments: you will send me $5 on January 15, 1950, and $4 on the 15th of every month after that; the last installment will be on June 15, 1950—and that will repay the total.
> 
> Are you willing to do it?
> 
> Here is what I want you to think over: *Once you get a job, there will always be many things which you will need and on which you might prefer to spend your money, rather than repay a debt. I want you to decide now, in advance, as an honest and responsible person, whether you will be willing and able to repay this money, no matter what happens, as an obligation above and ahead of any other expense.*
> 
> I want you to understand right now that I will not accept any excuse—except a serious illness. If you become ill, then I will give you an extension of time—but for no other reason. If, when the debt becomes due, you tell me that you can’t pay me because you needed a new pair of shoes or a new coat or you gave the money to somebody in the family who needed it more than I do—then I will consider you as an embezzler. No, I won’t send a policeman after you, but I will write you off as a rotten person and I will never speak or write to you again.
> 
> Now I will tell you why I am so serious and severe about this. I despise irresponsible people. I don’t want to deal with them or help them in any way. *An irresponsible person is a person who makes vague promises, then breaks his word, blames it on circumstances and expects other people to forgive it. A responsible person does not make a promise without thinking of all the consequences and being prepared to meet them.*
> 
> You want $25 for the purpose of buying a dress; you tell me that you will get a job and be able to repay me. That’s fine and I am willing to help you, if that is exactly what you mean. *But if what you mean is: give me the money now and I will repay it if I don’t change my mind about it—then the deal is off.* If I keep my part of the deal, you must keep yours, just exactly as agreed, no matter what happens.
> 
> I was very badly disappointed in Mimi and Marna [Docky]. When I first met Mimi, she asked me to give her money for the purpose of taking an art course. I gave her the money, but she did not take the art course. I supported Marna for a year—for the purpose of helping her to finish high school. She did not finish high school. *I will take a chance on you, because I don’t want to blame you for the actions of your sisters.* But I want you to show me that you are a better kind of person.
> 
> I will tell you the reasons for the conditions I make: I think that the person who asks and expects other people to give him money, instead of earning it, is the most rotten person on earth. I would like to teach you, if I can, very early in life, the idea of a self-respecting, self-supporting, responsible, capitalistic person. If you borrow money and repay it, it is the best training in responsibility that you can ever have.
> 
> *I want you to drop—if you have it in your mind—the idea that you are entitled to take money or support from me, just because we happen to be relatives.* I want you to understand very clearly, right now, when you are young, that no honest person believes that he is obliged to support his relatives. I don’t believe it and will not do it. I cannot like you or want to help you without reason, just because you need the help. That is not a good reason. *But you can earn my liking, my interest and my help by showing me that you are a good person.*
> 
> Now think this over and let me know whether you want to borrow the money on my conditions and whether you give me your word of honor to observe the conditions. If you do, I will send you the money.* If you don’t understand me, if you think that I am a hard, cruel, rich old woman and you don’t approve of my ideas—well, you don’t have to approve, but then you must not ask me for help.*
> 
> I will wait to hear from you, and if I find out that you are my kind of person, then I hope that this will be the beginning of a real friendship between us, which would please me very much.


Nothing wrong with the parts in bold. I find her intentions reasonable but her idea of what makes a worthwhile relationship too rigid.


----------



## Typhon

crashbandicoot said:


> I was curious about seeing how Fi will respond to it. Especially low order, xli and lxe . Delta is dead, so...
> 
> I dont care how other types see it. Just because the writer is beta doesnt mean it belongs to that thread or non appropiate for gamma thread.


Ok. 

I'm still hesitating between LIE and EIE, so I'll give my 2 cents. 

I agree with her in principle, and I think its totally just. Relationships don't have to be about money, but when money is involved, it becomes a serious issue and shes right in her attitude. I agree its long, like its a bit ceremonious but she was writing to someone she didn't know so maybe she wanted to give the impression she was taking this girl's request seriously and not just blowing it off with a two-word retort.


----------



## Vermillion

crashbandicoot said:


> Hey Gammas, what do you think about the principle style in this letter ? Do you agree with her ?
> 
> Ayn Rand, worst aunt EVER: Read her letter to her 17-year-old niece | Dangerous Minds
> 
> I'm most curious about how xLI's see this letter.


I think she's being a real tightass and her niece would have regretted asking her for the money. What bothers me isn't the principle of personal responsibility, which is totally fine, but how rigid she is about enforcing it and how many behavioral rules she sets up.


----------



## Entropic

Aynd Rand sounds like the most unhealthy type 1 I've come across. Honestly, she'd been more honest if she admitted that she felt hurt when she let others borrow money from her and she lends them out of a feeling of goodwill and she is not repaid for her actions, because that is frankly the actual problem here. She's just too emotionally immature to admit it and uses the concept of responsibility to leverage her feelings. I honestly find it pretty disgusting in itself.


----------



## willowglass

crashbandicoot said:


> Hey Gammas, what do you think about the principle style in this letter ? Do you agree with her ?
> 
> Ayn Rand, worst aunt EVER: Read her letter to her 17-year-old niece | Dangerous Minds
> 
> I'm most curious about how xLI's see this letter.


I'm not Gamma but I just had to read it (lol) and got my husband in on it, who I type LSE. He said he liked her, and whoever wrote this article is an idiot. That at the end of the article, they were just proving her point by saying they would take the money, not pay her back, and that they were the type of people she was talking about. That she's teaching her a life lesson, how banks are, and he said he wished somebody would have done that to him. Then he went on to say how 25$ was a lot of money back then. And then we went on to discuss how much 25$ was worth back then...

As for me, I really fail to see how she's the worst aunt ever. I thought her life philosophy is kind of interesting. She was a woman who knew what she wanted. It's her money. I thought it was kind of rude to ask for that money to begin with, because I was thinking, as my husband said, that that was a lot of money back then. And Rand didn't seem to think she knew her well, but I get the feeling Rand consider knowing people well differently than myself. But the family could have been rich or maybe the girl was desperate for the dress for some reason or another, so I really can't say anything bad about the girl. And then she said the girls sister screwed her over. She could have just denied her on that basis but she didn't. She was allowing the girl to prove her worth to her. I fail to see how that's shitty because she was giving the girl a chance. She also took the time to explain her reasoning which I thought was considerate. It may have been harsh, but I think she was just a harsh person. And I agree with my husband, she was teaching her a life lesson. I can't help but respect her in some way. So she's kind of a grump. She's like grumpy cat. So what? I really think she had good intentions in regards to her niece, so I can't really say anything bad about her. I guess one could say she had issues, but don't we all? We all have different ways of coping with reality, and I guess this is hers. I'd actually really like to read about her early life to see what might have made Rand this way. 

Anyway, now we both want to read Atlas Shrugged because we haven't read it before. I've wanted to read it for a while.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

goldberry3 said:


> But the family could have been rich or maybe the girl was desperate for the dress for some reason or another, so I really can't say anything bad about the girl. And then she said the girls sister screwed her over. She could have just denied her on that basis but she didn't. She was allowing the girl to prove her worth to her. I fail to see how that's shitty because she was giving the girl a chance. She also took the time to explain her reasoning which I thought was considerate. It may have been harsh, but I think she was just a harsh person.


Exactly. Harsh, rigid, but ultimately trying to help her niece in her own way. Nice lady, though I would never borrow money from her.


----------



## willowglass

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Exactly. Harsh, rigid, but ultimately trying to help her niece in her own way. Nice lady, though I would never borrow money from her.


I wouldn't borrow money from her either. It wouldn't be worth it to me.  I'd have to be desperate. lol. She seems like a very hard person to impress. I'd screw up, it would be inevitable, and she would hate me forever. Haha. I certainly wouldn't borrow money from her and not pay her back either, though, like the person that wrote the article joked about. It just seems really dishonest. I didn't think it was funny at all, really immature imo. I think I have more of a problem with the person who wrote the article.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

goldberry3 said:


> I wouldn't borrow money from her either. It wouldn't be worth it to me.  I'd have to be desperate. lol. She seems like a very hard person to impress. I'd screw up, it would be inevitable, and she would hate me forever. Haha. I certainly wouldn't borrow money from her and not pay her back either, though, like the person that wrote the article joked about. It just seems really dishonest. I didn't think it was funny at all, really immature imo. I think I have more of a problem with the person who wrote the article.


Hm. I don't particularly agree or disagree with either one in this case. I'm sure the author had reason for that judgment. You know?


----------



## willowglass

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Hm. I don't particularly agree or disagree with either one in this case. I'm sure the author had reason for that judgment. You know?


You're making me feel judgmental. lol. That might have came off a little harsh. I should join the ranks of Rand on the harshness scale-o-meter. I just didn't like how the author addressed the article. I thought it was distasteful? Like Rand was being made fun of. I don't like seeing people made fun of like that even if I don't know them, like them, and they are dead. Anyway, I don't entirely agree with either one. I just found the author more disagreeable to me. But, yeah, I get what you're saying.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

goldberry3 said:


> You're making me feel judgmental. lol. That might have came off a little harsh. I should join the ranks of Rand on the harshness scale-o-meter. I just didn't like how the author addressed the article. I thought it was distasteful? Like Rand was being made fun of. I don't like seeing people made fun of like that even if I don't know them, like them, and they are dead. Anyway, I don't entirely agree with either one. I just found the author more disagreeable to me. But, yeah, I get what you're saying.


Really? Why do you feel judgmental?

It seems to me that neither party is particularly *good* as it were, so I'm kind of meh on them. I'm just...questioning. Digging for information, as it were. I want to reach my own conclusions rather than jump on the bandwagon. But I don't want to ignore everyone while I question, so I question the others to get people involved. Automatic habit, I suppose. Sorry.

I can see how the article author would seem to be overly judgmental. He clearly reacted quite negatively to Rand. I imagine that he had a bad experience with someone not trusting him when he was in a hard place, so now he is sensitive to it. Maybe he just simply didn't bother to try to see it from her viewpoint, but something about the heat in his words makes me think it is personal for him. Some people leap to help the "oppressed" as a matter of principle.

Perhaps Ayn's prior experiences with the family daughters justifies her letter. Perhaps not. Either way, Ayn is clearly trying to set boundaries to feel safe in pursuing the relationship, to make sure everyone is good and proper and doing what they are supposed to do. Otherwise she doesn't want to take the risk. I read this letter, and I smell fear. Fear disguised as control, as risk avoidance.

Personally, I think that Rand's message to her family is ultimately her business, and that of her family's. The author of the article seems to me to be sensationalizing a story and making it out as worse than it is. I don't know exactly why he comes across that way to me. It...just does.


----------



## willowglass

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Really? Why do you feel judgmental?
> 
> It seems to me that neither party is particularly *good* as it were, so I'm kind of meh on them. I'm just...questioning. Digging for information, as it were. I want to reach my own conclusions rather than jump on the bandwagon. But I don't want to ignore everyone while I question, so I question the others to get people involved. Automatic habit, I suppose. Sorry.
> 
> I can see how the article author would seem to be overly judgmental. He clearly reacted quite negatively to Rand. I imagine that he had a bad experience with someone not trusting him when he was in a hard place, so now he is sensitive to it. Maybe he just simply didn't bother to try to see it from her viewpoint, but something about the heat in his words makes me think it is personal for him. Some people leap to help the "oppressed" as a matter of principle.
> 
> Perhaps Ayn's prior experiences with the family daughters justifies her letter. Perhaps not. Either way, Ayn is clearly trying to set boundaries to feel safe in pursuing the relationship, to make sure everyone is good and proper and doing what they are supposed to do. Otherwise she doesn't want to take the risk. I read this letter, and I smell fear. Fear disguised as control, as risk avoidance.
> 
> Personally, I think that Rand's message to her family is ultimately her business, and that of her family's. The author of the article seems to me to be sensationalizing a story and making it out as worse than it is. I don't know exactly why he comes across that way to me. It...just does.


Deep question. I suppose I'll go there. I tend to view people that are accepting as better than me. I try to be accepting, but sometimes I'm not. I will not deny it. When other people are accepting and I'm not, they make me feel badly about myself. It makes me want to reevaluate my behavior and is a source of shame for myself, especially when other people point out my behavior. When you were accepting of the person who wrote the article, it made me feel guilty because I was not being accepting. However, despite the fact that I very much agree with you about the person being bitter, I still can not be accepting of said person. I just know that said person and I wouldn't get along. I know Ayn Rand would think I was a few choice words, but I still find her amusing for some reason. 

I very much appreciate your POV. There is no need to apologize. I wasn't offended by your comment, it just made me realize I was doing something I didn't like. It wasn't your fault.

Yes, fear disguised as control. I want to talk about this. lol. That's what I saw as well. Do you think that is what control is though? People want to control because they are fearful. The more controlling they are, the more fearful they are? It helps them feel safe? This is something I feel like I come a crossed often in people. Of course people handle fear differently, but I feel like control is one way fear manifests itself in people. Maybe a survival mechanism or something. A coping mechanism...


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

goldberry3 said:


> Deep question. I suppose I'll go there. I tend to view people that are accepting as better than me. I try to be accepting, but sometimes I'm not. I will not deny it. When other people are accepting and I'm not, they make me feel badly about myself. It makes me want to reevaluate my behavior and is a source of shame for myself, especially when other people point out my behavior. When you were accepting of the person who wrote the article, it made me feel guilty because I was not being accepting. However, despite the fact that I very much agree with you about the person being bitter, I still can not be accepting of said person. I just know that said person and I wouldn't get along. I know Ayn Rand would think I was a few choice words, but I still find her amusing for some reason.
> 
> I very much appreciate your POV. There is no need to apologize. I wasn't offended by your comment, it just made me realize I was doing something I didn't like. It wasn't your fault.
> 
> Yes, fear disguised as control. I want to talk about this. lol. That's what I saw as well. Do you think that is what control is though? People want to control because they are fearful. The more controlling they are, the more fearful they are? It helps them feel safe? This is something I feel like I come a crossed often in people. Of course people handle fear differently, but I feel like control is one way fear manifests itself in people. Maybe a survival mechanism or something. A coping mechanism...


OK. I won't apologize then! 

Nah, but seriously. I strive to be honest in self expression as much as possible. So thanks for understanding and trying to soothe my apologetic-ness. 

Is accepting others then a necessary thing in order to be a good person? Shame generally implies that you have done something wrong or bad, so you feel bad that you do not accept. So failing to accept is bad, then? Why? Do we not all have our own views? I'd be more offended if you tried to change the other person; all I see here is expression of a negative sentiment. Is that a bad thing in and of itself? If negativity is bad, then...then can any person fail to be bad? Everyone feels negativity at one time or another. Its part of being human, you know? So if we do take negativity to be bad, then all each person can do is recognize when they have done this and strive to do it less - in which case you are doing great, as you strive to accept the "badness" of what you have done - OR we can assume that it cannot be bad in itself, because all people do it, in which case that means we must evaluate case-by-case to determine what is truly bad and what is not.


Helplessness is destructive. It is on the path to nihilism. It leads to depression and stagnation and eventual dissipation. Control counters that. Control is rigid, inflexible. Helplessness is loose, scattered. Control chases away the fear of being helpless, transforms it, and creates new feelings. It is stress inducing. The more control a person strives for, the more fearful they become. The fear dissipates as you let the control go, yes. But does the fear cause controlling behavior, or does controlling cause fear? I think it is the latter. Control fights helplessness, but control creates anxious stress, a form of fear. Fear of dissipation changes into a fear of loss, but hides itself. Subterfuge. One thing acts as another but doesn't really change.


----------



## willowglass

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> OK. I won't apologize then!
> 
> Nah, but seriously. I strive to be honest in self expression as much as possible. So thanks for understanding and trying to soothe my apologetic-ness.
> 
> Is accepting others then a necessary thing in order to be a good person? Shame generally implies that you have done something wrong or bad, so you feel bad that you do not accept. So failing to accept is bad, then? Why? Do we not all have our own views? I'd be more offended if you tried to change the other person; all I see here is expression of a negative sentiment. Is that a bad thing in and of itself? If negativity is bad, then...then can any person fail to be bad? Everyone feels negativity at one time or another. Its part of being human, you know? So if we do take negativity to be bad, then all each person can do is recognize when they have done this and strive to do it less - in which case you are doing great, as you strive to accept the "badness" of what you have done - OR we can assume that it cannot be bad in itself, because all people do it, in which case that means we must evaluate case-by-case to determine what is truly bad and what is not.
> 
> 
> Helplessness is destructive. It is on the path to nihilism. It leads to depression and stagnation and eventual dissipation. Control counters that. Control is rigid, inflexible. Helplessness is loose, scattered. Control chases away the fear of being helpless, transforms it, and creates new feelings. It is stress inducing. The more control a person strives for, the more fearful they become. The fear dissipates as you let the control go, yes. But does the fear cause controlling behavior, or does controlling cause fear? I think it is the latter. Control fights helplessness, but control creates anxious stress, a form of fear. Fear of dissipation changes into a fear of loss, but hides itself. Subterfuge. One thing acts as another but doesn't really change.


Haha. No problem 

Hm...No, being accepting isn't necessary to be a good person to me. Although I have a hard time constituting what a good person is. You know how some people have heroes? I've never had one. There are people I admire, or they have qualities that I like, but there is not one person I find wholly good. Like I admire my grandmother for getting through college with 3 young kids while going through a divorce, but she wasn't perfect. If someone asked me, 'Who do you think is a good person?' Or 'Who do you think is a bad person?' I would have a hard time answering and might not want to answer at all in this way. I know what is bad to me or good to me, but I honestly don't like the words good/bad much because they are too concrete for me. I don't believe anything is ever only one thing. Are some people good more than they are bad, or vice versa? I suppose you could say they are.

I've actually spent a fair amount of time thinking about this. I had to ask my SO if he thought there were good people and bad people to see how I'd react to it. He said he thought there were. So I asked him more specifically if he thought a such and such person was good or bad. He said bad. Admittedly, I didn't think such and such was was. I said such and such person was insecure. But not exactly someone I want to be around. I don't care for that particular person. Therefore, since he was not accepting at all, does that make him bad if I thought not being accepting is bad? No, but it scares me tbh. And I thought he was bitter about that particular person. Which I find understandable. So why does it scare me people not being accepting? I feel bad things can come of this attitude. I find it is blinding in a way. I however do not think bad things will come of the attitude for me to stay away from that particular person. I mean it could, but I think not. 

If I place negative judgment on a particular person, it does not change anything, but possibly someone's opinion of me. If the weather is bad, will it do any good to talk about it? It will show my attitude towards the weather, which can be good in a way as someone can get to know you more. But It will only do good to make the most of what we have. It's kind of like there is no point in whining about things. Like if you don't like something, do something about it or don't say anything. Talking about it or saying bad things about it won't solve the problem, well not always at least. Any negative judgment would say just as much of me, or perhaps more, than the other person. It is revealing in way. Sometimes it speaks volumes for those who wish to read them. 

So that's as far as I got with that. I could go farther but this is already too long.

I don't think negativity is bad. Sometimes it can be good. But I've found excessive negativity can drive people away. I actually consider myself a negative person and have to watch what I say because I've gotten people upset with me for being 'overly negative'. Being overly negative can be like a poison, too, and holding on to too much negativity can rot you from the inside. So I guess that's why it's bad to me. If I think positively, I feel more good will come of it. 


Cool. Really. I mean I never thought about it that way. Helplessness is destructive and control is rigid and stress reducing. I definitely agree with it. I'm always thinking I need to get in control of my life, but I wonder if I'm just trying to create an illusion. But when you have everything under control things seem to move more smoothly, efficiently. I read something lately that stuck with me. Clear space, clean mind. And an uncontrolled environment has a negative impact on me, I think, as it makes my thoughts more scattered. And scattered thoughts can create anxiety. So maybe the root of this is fear, too. But I suppose control is useful in ways, as is the illusion of it.

Anyway, I feel like I'm clogging up Gamma now. lol. Sorry Gammas. I would have moved this but I didn't want to break it.


----------



## Entropic

A random thought as I've just had a bunch of video game trailers play in the background on the second screen: but are a majority of hardcore games really biased towards Se-Ni?


----------



## Immolate

Entropic said:


> A random thought as I've just had a bunch of video game trailers play in the background on the second screen: but are a majority of hardcore games really biased towards Se-Ni?


That's been my impression. There's the competitive element, not just against others, but also as an individual drive. Do you have specific games in mind?


----------



## Blue Soul

Entropic said:


> A random thought as I've just had a bunch of video game trailers play in the background on the second screen: but are a majority of hardcore games really biased towards Se-Ni?


Wouldn't game developers get more sales by catering to all different kinds of people (or at least the most profitable mix)? Depends on what you mean with hardcore games though, as hardcore could go in any direction of genre I think. Different people could play the same game differently and be motivated to play by altogether different reasons.


----------



## owlet

Entropic said:


> A random thought as I've just had a bunch of video game trailers play in the background on the second screen: but are a majority of hardcore games really biased towards Se-Ni?


What do you mean by 'hardcore' games, out of curiosity?


----------



## Immolate

Entropic said:


> Delta ST is a lot about form in a way. More how it works and to make something work to the fullest. And well, Okami was very strong on its sentiments and relationships too, but personally it wasn't quite what I was paying attention to and it's marketed for its aesthetics and how it's unique in this regard. I mean, compare the FF7 trailer remake and to Okami HD remake. The FF7 remake is more about the setting, I'd say, like sure, it does emphasize the graphics too, but *the Okami remake literally makes comparisons between HD and SD quality*.


I played the game back in the day and never chose to revisit it on the PS3. It's been several years. To be fair, though, aren't comparisons like that common when you remaster games regardless of what type of game it is? The visual upgrade is part of the point, I would say. It would be irrelevant for a game like FF7 because there is such a huge gap between the original and the remake. The tools bringing about the new version are entirely different and the aesthetic improvement is self-evident. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Speaking of FF7, what would you say in terms of quadra? I'm obviously a fan. (I'll stop poking after this, lol.)


----------



## Entropic

lets mosey said:


> I played the game back in the day and never chose to revisit it on the PS3. It's been several years. To be fair, though, aren't comparisons like that common when you remaster games regardless of what type of game it is? The visual upgrade is part of the point, I would say. It would be irrelevant for a game like FF7 because there is such a huge gap between the original and the remake. The tools bringing about the new version are entirely different and the aesthetic improvement is self-evident. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Speaking of FF7, what would you say in terms of quadra? I'm obviously a fan. (I'll stop poking after this, lol.)


Yes, it does in a way, but they don't have to showcase it either. I mean, SD > HD is pretty huge, everyone understands that lol. I mean, they could focus on something like, "relive the story and friendships again", or whatever, but they didn't. 

As for 7, I figure it's gamma-ish. Was never a fan though.


----------



## Immolate

Entropic said:


> Yes, it does in a way, but they don't have to showcase it either. I mean, SD > HD is pretty huge, everyone understands that lol. I mean, they could focus on something like, "relive the story and friendships again", or whatever, but they didn't.
> 
> As for 7, I figure it's gamma-ish. Was never a fan though.


You mean to say it's not a masterpiece of a game?










Yeah, I have quite the soft spot.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

goldberry3 said:


> Yeah, that somewhat confuses me. There are just so many ways, like say what people judge what is good and what is bad. One or the other. Goodness is often linked to things like purity and innocence. Badness with corruption...Good could be a person or societies idea of perfection. Or what is beneficial to them. Like someone may consider a sunny day a good day because it is beneficial to them, but someone somewhere else may be getting sunburnt from the sun, so a sunny day is not simply a good day. And to complicate it even more, a sunburn may turn out to be good because if the person didn't get sunburnt they would have headed into the jungle instead of their hut and gotten eaten by a jaguar! But it would have been good to someone else that the person was eaten by a jaguar because he was headed to their hut to kill them! lol But the situation is not simply one thing. Really is anything ever good or bad at all? Only what is good or bad to a person? But that may even not be what it seems. What is thought to be good may in fact be bad. Is it constantly shifting or is it always both or neither? I suppose you could say the concept of good and bad changes in a society over time, too, but I think in essence it is always the same.


That's the spirit XD
What is good? What is bad? What is evil? Can anything ever truly be define as one of these things? Or is it all in our minds? If it is in our minds, does that make it less impactful or less real? I think not! 



goldberry3 said:


> As for changes inside myself. Idk. I mean it might change how I feel about myself. Other than that, idk. I'll have to think about that.


OK. Just remember, that when you think about or decide something, that the internal process itself led to new conclusions or generated new data in the form of thoughts. You then remember these things, and can reference them at a later time. You may reach conclusions or take actions based solely on what you think about something. These things would not have happened, then, without that internal experience. Is that not change? I would argue it is. 



goldberry3 said:


> I see what you mean. But yeah, I consider all things useful, I just have to figure out a way to use them. I suppose I do find value in control as an illusion. More an illusion of control to myself. Maybe others find the illusion of control outside of themselves beneficial. I see control as a way to manage things and I feel if things are not managed then it is chaos. I like non-chaotic environments more than chaotic ones. But I think there is value in illusion in general. People use illusions. I think in some instances it is a necessity to get what they want or how they want things to be. But yeah, people lie to themselves, too. I guess that's another kind of illusion. I try not to lie to myself. If I want to create myself an illusion, I want to at least be honest with myself about it lol. I don't fear not being in control, though. I don't think that's the issue. I think I fear chaos. I'll have to think about it.


Hm. I adore chaos. I sow it, sometimes. To me, chaos is just the deconstruction of one thing to make way for another. It is natural. All things come to an end, and when that happens a new beginning can arise. The world is like a forest. It grows and changes and fights amongst itself (for light, water, nutrients, etc). Eventually, it burns, and that destruction releases all the space and energy needed for a new crop to grow. The trees burn out, but the phosphorous and other things remain, and seed the new growth. It is changed through a process of destruction and regrowth. Transformation. Similarly, negatively judging someone else is like burning a portion of your own mind, replacing one image of what is with another. Now you think this person is bad, later you may come to admire them for something else and think they are good, still later they may die and you will be left with regret and angst for never having gotten to really know them. But the tree on the hill over yonder (another person in our forest-world) sees that person from another angle, and comes from a different walk of life too. Trees used to life on a hill are different from trees used to life in a glade, and both see the tree that lives in the copse over yonder in different ways. Do you see the same fire when that tree burns up and dies? What is that fire? Is it the same fire if you see it from very different places?

I sow chaos in order for new things to grow. Especially in tabletop rpgs. I usually have an overarching plan to deconstruct whatever exists in the world that I see as rotten or corrupt, and then tend the remnants as it grows. Like, in Shadowrun I am doing my damndest to take down the Aztechnology Corporation. Just, like, the whole thing. I've hatched elaborate plans and counterplans and side plans and tailchaser runs for other teams to do to eventually sublimate Azzie resources into another corp that is secretly under my control, and in so doing wrest away the power that allows them to do the things they do. But will I replace them with a new corporation? No. Those resources are getting diverted all over the place, and are being used to tear down the system.

Also, I just generally do things chaotically. I had a Star Wars character that leaped from ship to ship with enhanced force jumps in a vehicle battle up in the air, taking down fighters with lightsaber strikes. One missed roll and he'd be dead or dying. The risk was worth it, because the chaos and disorder sown by him led to the enemy commander calling in all ships, and the battle was won. They assumed he must be one of the most powerful force users to ever live based on those actions and some epic dodges. Why do things in the typical or 'allowed' ways using established systems when I can bring things down and institute my own order?


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Mordred Phantom said:


> I suspect then that playing card games with budget decks is a challenge too, as you don't have the best cards so you have to compensate with a good strategy and reading your opponent well. I started playing Vanguard this month and the clan that I chose has units that are ridiculously expensive or rare to get in booster packs, so I made one by mixing three trial decks, buying a cheap Grade 4 unit and getting some cards for free because nobody wanted them. I also didn't pick clans that are meta, as I find them boring as hell. Kagero, Narukami and Link Joker are control clans that let to wipe or restrain fields easily, while Gear Chronicle can nuke sometimes, but those are cards that I don't have at all.
> 
> The only meta clan that I would even try is Shadow Paladin, but the rest just don't appeal to me at all.


Oh yeah, definitely. I try to craft decks that should never work but do, too. I have a magic deck based on Moonfolk. They use an odd mechanic wherein they pay mana and return lands from the field to your hand to do effects. Its complicated to execute, but rewarding when people tableflip.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Entropic said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt interest in being invested in terms of skill/difficulty is related. Only the style and tone of the games would be, pretty much. Like owlet wrote, Se-Ni games are pretty muted in color and presentation usually. I have to think of good examples here, but something like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More stylized:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually can't find any other examples that I think fit the bill of Ne-Si, not that are very recent, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hm. This reminds of me of something that has been bothering me. I have been playing a game I got for free lately, called Sunset Overdrive. It is incredibly colorful and flashy, and it is full of puns and wordplay that are really over the top and random. It gets to be frustrating, because it feels like the game has no focus or real goal. I doubt I'll ever finish it, just because I can't get into it. It certainly is very colorful, though. Have you heard of this game? What sort of functions would you say it has?
> 
> 
> 
> Entropic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Similarly, even though I consider Starcraft 2 a hardcore game because it was primarily designed with hardcore players in mind, the main Blizzard development teams have become increasingly Ne-Si e.g. Hearthstone, Overwatch, Starcraft 2, WoW. Even Diablo 3 that still tries to retain a lot of its darker days and I would say is aesthetically more towards the Se-Ni side of things is moving towards Ne-Si (it's extremely notable in the storytelling, though I blame this on Chris Metzen that's just a terrible storywriter in general).
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Diablo just isn't as dark as it used to be. Also, ditto on what you say about minecraft. After I make a defensible fortress, I'm done. No more goals :/
> 
> 
> Speaking of games and functions, what do you forum-goers think of Dying Light? Have you played this game? I was thinking that it is maybe a Delta story, but I dunno.
Click to expand...


----------



## Immolate

@*Entropic* I was thinking about aesthetics, and The Saboteur came to mind as a game that uses something like color to tell or supplement a story. It strikes me as similar to Okami in that you add "brightness" and "life" to the world:






I'm trying to think of games that are purely aesthetic in their intent and purpose. This one is the only one to come to mind at the moment:


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Oh yeah, definitely. I try to craft decks that should never work but do, too. I have a magic deck based on Moonfolk. They use an odd mechanic wherein they pay mana and return lands from the field to your hand to do effects. Its complicated to execute, but rewarding when people tableflip.


That reminds me a bit of the Bermuda Triangle clan of Vanguard, which bounces cards from your field back to the hand for effects and other troll actions. My own deck also messes with fields, as it has a skill called time leap that lets you replace one card with other with a higher grade for that turn, and then you return the card that you called back to the deck. This can be used for calling cards that downgrade the opponent cards when you call them, then you send them back for repeating the process during the next turns. That and rewind, which sends enemy cards to the bottom of your opponent's deck, can mess badly with your opponent's strategy if you know which of their cards are key for their plans.


----------



## Sygma

lets mosey said:


> @*Entropic* I was thinking about aesthetics, and The Saboteur came to mind as a game that uses something like color to tell or supplement a story. It strikes me as similar to Okami in that you add "brightness" and "life" to the world:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to think of games that are purely aesthetic in their intent and purpose. This one is the only one to come to mind at the moment:


Have you played the reboot that tanked of Prince of Persia ?


----------



## Immolate

Sygma said:


> Have you played the reboot that tanked of Prince of Persia ?


I have not.


----------



## Sygma

lets mosey said:


> I have not.


Kind of the same meta, bringing light - life - hope back by chasing darkness and letting nature take over instead, if you like poetic experiences, check it out


----------



## Immolate

Sygma said:


> Kind of the same meta, bringing light - life - hope back by chasing darkness and letting nature take over instead, if you like poetic experiences, check it out


Thank you, I wasn't aware of this. I'll check it out


----------



## owlet

@Entropic I do generally agree with your typing of video games, although with Okami a lot of it is bringing out the hidden potential of objects (using the paintbrush), which makes me think it might be more Delta.
Also:


Entropic said:


> So at some level what I deem to be a hardcore game is more of a gut feeling kind of thing, whether it is aimed at people that really, really enjoy video games and to be better at video games. Casual games are games that can be enjoyed by people that don't have video games as a hobby, hence games like LoL is quite neither hardcore nor casual because it tries to cater to both demographics. You should be able to play and enjoy LoL with your friends without being a hardcore gamer even though the core concept of the game is hardcore.


I always find the line between hardcore and casual games to be very fluid. 'Hardcore' now has connotations of the game being 'worthy', while 'casual' means it's not worth the time. I think your definition is a good one - casual are just more accessible. Like I'd say Journey is a 'casual' game (there's no combat, very few enemies, fairly straightforward puzzles), but it's one of my favourites because of how it writes a (very powerful) story without words.


----------



## willowglass

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> OK. Just remember, that when you think about or decide something, that the internal process itself led to new conclusions or generated new data in the form of thoughts. You then remember these things, and can reference them at a later time. You may reach conclusions or take actions based solely on what you think about something. These things would not have happened, then, without that internal experience. Is that not change? I would argue it is.


You could definitely argue it as change. I kind of see it as a concoction myself. But whatever interacted is interacting with who you are, so does that turn into something new inside yourself as a change? As in transformative? I think you could definitely look at it that way. I have a hard time seeing myself as changing, though, or anyone else. When people have told me I'd changed before, I was kind of insulted. Because I take it as them not really knowing me? Does that make sense?



> Hm. I adore chaos. I sow it, sometimes. To me, chaos is just the deconstruction of one thing to make way for another. It is natural. All things come to an end, and when that happens a new beginning can arise. The world is like a forest. It grows and changes and fights amongst itself (for light, water, nutrients, etc). Eventually, it burns, and that destruction releases all the space and energy needed for a new crop to grow. The trees burn out, but the phosphorous and other things remain, and seed the new growth. It is changed through a process of destruction and regrowth. Transformation. Similarly, negatively judging someone else is like burning a portion of your own mind, replacing one image of what is with another.


Very interesting. Yeah, sometimes chaos is necessary, or eventually it is, or is just a part of this cycle that seems to be inherent in everything.



> Now you think this person is bad, later you may come to admire them for something else and think they are good, still later they may die and you will be left with regret and angst for never having gotten to really know them. But the tree on the hill over yonder (another person in our forest-world) sees that person from another angle, and comes from a different walk of life too. Trees used to life on a hill are different from trees used to life in a glade, and both see the tree that lives in the copse over yonder in different ways. Do you see the same fire when that tree burns up and dies? What is that fire? Is it the same fire if you see it from very different places?


Haha. Severus Snape. This makes me think of Severus Snape & Harry Potter. I would say the fire represents different things to the people looking at it.

Idk. People rarely surprise me, or life in general. I rarely change my mind about people. My favorite saying is, "I'm not surprised.". I don't know whether to call that a weakness or a strength lol I see what you are saying, though.



> I sow chaos in order for new things to grow. Especially in tabletop rpgs. I usually have an overarching plan to deconstruct whatever exists in the world that I see as rotten or corrupt, and then tend the remnants as it grows. Like, in Shadowrun I am doing my damndest to take down the Aztechnology Corporation. Just, like, the whole thing. I've hatched elaborate plans and counterplans and side plans and tailchaser runs for other teams to do to eventually sublimate Azzie resources into another corp that is secretly under my control, and in so doing wrest away the power that allows them to do the things they do. But will I replace them with a new corporation? No. Those resources are getting diverted all over the place, and are being used to tear down the system.
> 
> Also, I just generally do things chaotically. I had a Star Wars character that leaped from ship to ship with enhanced force jumps in a vehicle battle up in the air, taking down fighters with lightsaber strikes. One missed roll and he'd be dead or dying. The risk was worth it, because the chaos and disorder sown by him led to the enemy commander calling in all ships, and the battle was won. They assumed he must be one of the most powerful force users to ever live based on those actions and some epic dodges. Why do things in the typical or 'allowed' ways using established systems when I can bring things down and institute my own order?


lol. So this makes me think, what are your thoughts on Anarchy?


----------



## willowglass

I feel so out of league with this gaming discussion. I've been kind of out of touch with this stuff for a while. It'd be cool to have a thread on games and quadras, though. I'm an RPG fan myself. Anyone know what quadra Zelda would be? I could never get into Final Fantasy, but I love Zelda. I wonder what Final Fantasy would be? There was also this game called The Legend of Dragoon that I used to be obsessed with when I was younger.. But my favorite games ever have been Banjo Kazzoie, Mario Kart, Zelda, and the Legend of Dragoon. I'm sure there's other stuff out there, but like I said, I've been out of touch for awhile. But I hate stuff like Call of Duty. Did anyone discuss that one yet? My husband (LSE) bought that one and liked it, but he doesn't play games much. Actually I think he only played it a handful of times in the last maybe 4 years? He says video games rot your brain and he'd rather be outside doing something. Anyway. We used to play Mario Kart on the N64 and we loved it. I miss my N64. Ah, yeah I like Epic Mickey, too. And Kirby Epic Yarn. lol.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

goldberry3 said:


> You could definitely argue it as change. I kind of see it as a concoction myself. But whatever interacted is interacting with who you are, so does that turn into something new inside yourself as a change? As in transformative? I think you could definitely look at it that way. I have a hard time seeing myself as changing, though, or anyone else. When people have told me I'd changed before, I was kind of insulted. Because I take it as them not really knowing me? Does that make sense?


I would say it didn't interact with who you are, it interacted with who you were. After the interaction you aren't the same. I'd say the change happens constantly, that the act of asking you a question has changed what your answer will be because you have changed just by hearing the question. 

It makes sense, although...I find it a bit odd, somehow. If someone pointed I have changed, I'd be like "...yeah? Well, of course I have? Did you really think I'd always stay the same? " and then maybe go on to discuss what changes and how and when and where it is going.

Kind of like when my high school wanted me to write an essay on what I learned over the course of being there. Like, that's kind of difficult - there are so many changes, but it sounds like what you really want is what I learned academically, and that wasn't much...so what do I say? I guess I'll ramble on about what I actually did learn. Not getting enough page count, but oh well. Its like the teachers assumed that I had some sort of moment of profound change, like I could point to specific things where I learned something worthwhile. That doesn't happen often for me. I learn a little here, a little there, and put it all together myself. You know?




goldberry3 said:


> Haha. Severus Snape. This makes me think of Severus Snape & Harry Potter. I would say the fire represents different things to the people looking at it.
> 
> Idk. People rarely surprise me, or life in general. I rarely change my mind about people. My favorite saying is, "I'm not surprised.". I don't know whether to call that a weakness or a strength lol I see what you are saying, though.


I remember thinking a lot about Severus Snape in the early books. He always seemed to me like there was....more to him, you know? Everyone else hated him and empathized with Harry for the most part. I was the one who asked what Snape's story was, and why he does what he does. It felt to me like the author was somehow *trying* to get me to dislike Snape, like I was being led on. Like, there were cues where it was very clear that the "thing to do" is to dislike Snape, that he is "unfair". But what if Snape is only hard on Harry because he believes that Harry can do better? What if Snape is actually watching over him? I remember loving the Marauder's Map, because it could show truth that the characters never seemed to desire or to look for. So yeah, it seemed to me like the writing itself was "telling" me to dislike Snape. And I rejected that. I don't like it when someone else tries to make me reach a certain conclusion. It seems to me like there is something missing. I don't accept the conclusions of others without mulling it over for myself, first. I may get stressed and retreat, or pretend to give up or whatever. But I haven't really taken in the conclusion of the other person when I do that. I've just become doubtful. You know?



goldberry3 said:


> lol. So this makes me think, what are your thoughts on Anarchy?


As a solution to political problems? Not a good idea. Human nature is split on this issue. Some people deal well with anarchy, some don't. I prefer Meritocracy coupled with as much autonomy as possible, with a very hands off government. But some would rail against that. In the end, I think the best solution is to have different governments in the world at the same time, and to allow free immigration within reason.

But Anarchy itself? Allowing chaos to rule. I think I'd love it. I think I'd thrive in such a world. I would build a new society that is free of rules that make no sense. How? No fucking clue. What would it be? Ehh. My ideas on an ideal society change pretty frequently, as I learn new things. Whatever form I would strive for would change more once I learned what doesn't work. This is why I like political science, though. You can learn what works XD


----------



## To_august

goldberry3 said:


> It'd be cool to have a thread on games and quadras, though.


It exists -> http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/646650-gaming-meets-socionics.html


----------



## Entropic

@owlet Fair point. It's been several years since I played the game and my strongest impression was how I loved the style. The gameplay itself was a bit buggy since I played it on an emulator.

As for hardcore vs casual, that makes sense that casual is simply more accessible for the person that is less interested in being strongly devoted to a game. I mean, at some level any game can be taken at a casual or hardcore level, but I have a hard time seeing how one can play something like Dark Souls casually and still expect to progress much within the game unless you're really talented at the game, or something. From that pov, a lot of multiplayer games in general are casual, even games like Street Fighter despite having a very competitive scene, because it's easy to jump right into action, have a bit of fun and then quit. You don't need to invest too much into it.

I see this desire to streamline the experience as being difficult to balance in general, because the more streamlined it becomes, more complex mechanics are usually reduced or changed in favor of making it more simple to approach. I actually think the development of FF15 is a great example of that. I mean, take the introduction of the wait mode:






And I think it's really clever, actually. It breaks the boundary between fluid real-time combat and turn-based so you are kind of taking turns, but then not really, because real-time combat is more "hardcore" because it's more difficult to get into and also requires more skill to perform well.


----------



## owlet

Entropic said:


> @*owlet* Fair point. It's been several years since I played the game and my strongest impression was how I loved the style. The gameplay itself was a bit buggy since I played it on an emulator.


Haha, I've played that game a couple of times because I liked it so much. Aside from the gameplay, I'm also a mythology enthusiast, so it appeals on multiple fronts. The style is great - and very unusual in a game, which is appealing!


----------



## Immolate

@owlet ...I didn't remember the paintbrush until you mentioned it. That's kinda crazy, but it should be easy enough to forgive me because this was forever ago. Your point about bringing out the potential in objects is a very good one, and I think the paintbrush was unique in terms of mechanics but also as a way to talk about people and the world in general, how you need to nurture in specific and active ways to make things grow, whether you're trying to grow a flower or a relationship or a good feeling.

I do remember liking this guy, although I wouldn't be able to explain why:










@Entropic What you said about streamlining games reminded me of the "Narrative" difficulty they introduced in Mass Effect 3:



> This difficulty level is intended for players who are more interested in story than combat. Shepard and squadmates are stronger, weapons are easier to handle, and enemies are weaker and less aggressive. This is a nonrepresentative Mass Effect 3 combat experience.


"Casual" as a difficulty has always existed in the series, to my knowledge, but I suppose they felt they had to take it further to accommodate the growing demographic. This was also the same time they started to promote the female version of Commander Shepard, which had always existed as an option but had never been featured in promotional material.


----------



## Jakuri

^ From an Se dual-seeker no less, so all is forgiven. :kitteh:


----------



## Vermillion

Jakuri said:


> ^ From an Se dual-seeker no less, so all is forgiven. :kitteh:


 @Verity is sometimes more Se than I am


----------



## Verity

Night Huntress said:


> @Verity is sometimes more Se than I am


Objectively cooler too


Just look at this: _authority, influence, desire, political interest/personal investment, competition/struggle, willpower, impact, force, appearance, readiness, tactics, territory_

that's the ingredients of the most high rated TV-series. Objectively coolest.


----------



## Vermillion

Verity said:


> Objectively cooler too
> 
> 
> Just look at this: _authority, influence, desire, political interest/personal investment, competition/struggle, willpower, impact, force, appearance, readiness, tactics, territory_
> 
> that's the ingredients of the most high rated TV-series. Objectively coolest.


If you're cooler than me, that means I'm hotter than you.

What's the most highly rated TV series?


----------



## Verity

Night Huntress said:


> If you're cooler than me, that means I'm hotter than you.
> 
> What's the most highly rated TV series?


More hot-headed maybe.


Well, not _the one_ highest rated(I doubt there's even an accurate list), but a huge part of the ones at the top throughout somewhat recent years. Off the top of my mind: Breaking Bad, Rome, The Wire, Game of Thrones, Sopranos, House of Cards, Band of Brothers, Homeland, Deadwood, Prison Break, 24.


----------



## Vermillion

Verity said:


> More hot-headed maybe.


Hotter and more hot-headed. That's a combination I can live with.



> Well, not _the one_ highest rated(I doubt there's even an accurate list), but a huge part of the ones at the top throughout somewhat recent years. Off the top of my mind: Breaking Bad, Rome, The Wire, Game of Thrones, Sopranos, House of Cards, Band of Brothers, Homeland, Deadwood, Prison Break, 24.


House of Cards is #1 on that list! :ghost:

I'm watching Vikings right now. Have you seen it? Does it pick up pace after its first few episodes?


----------



## Verity

Night Huntress said:


> Hotter and more hot-headed. That's a combination I can live with.
> 
> 
> 
> House of Cards is #1 on that list! :ghost:
> 
> I'm watching Vikings right now. Have you seen it? Does it pick up pace after its first few episodes?


Season 1 is pretty slow and the characters don't develop much, but season 2 is really good and it gets better. I find that it's easy to underestimate the writers since there's so much focus on action.


----------



## Vermillion

Verity said:


> Season 1 is pretty slow and the characters don't develop much, but season 2 is really good and it gets better. I find that it's easy to underestimate the writers since there's so much focus on action.


Yeah, I don't exactly have the best opinion of the episodes right now lol. Ragnar's attractiveness is what is keeping me going, ahah.

I like Lagertha. I think she has a ton of potential, and I hope it is brought out the right way.


----------



## Entropic

Verity said:


> Objectively cooler too
> 
> 
> Just look at this: _authority, influence, desire, political interest/personal investment, competition/struggle, willpower, impact, force, appearance, readiness, tactics, territory_
> 
> that's the ingredients of the most high rated TV-series. Objectively coolest.


Vikings or Game of Thrones? That's the _real _question.Though really, fuck all of them. I wish True Detective season 2 was actually a real season 2.


----------



## Verity

Night Huntress said:


> Yeah, I don't exactly have the best opinion of the episodes right now lol. Ragnar's attractiveness is what is keeping me going, ahah.
> 
> I like Lagertha. I think she has a ton of potential, and I hope it is brought out the right way.


Yeah. She and Björn are the only ones who really care about doing the right thing without concern for personal gain, and she's a very well-written character. 

I also grew quite fond of the relationship between Athelstan and Ragnar.


----------



## Verity

Entropic said:


> Vikings or Game of Thrones? That's the _real _question.Though really, fuck all of them. I wish True Detective season 2 was actually a real season 2.


My favorite series right now is probably Black Sails tbh. Game of Thrones has turned to shit, and Vikings hasn't engaged me enough plot-wise to be contenders.

Apparently Pizzolatto was rushed into creating season 2 by HBO, which explains alot.


----------



## Vermillion

Verity said:


> Yeah. She and Björn are the only ones who really care about doing the right thing without concern for personal gain, and she's a very well-written character.
> 
> I also grew quite fond of the relationship between Athelstan and Ragnar.


Ah! I liked when he said "I don't see him as a slave; he is a responsible man." It's sweet because Athelstan has another shot at a honorable life, and because he isn't being disrespected despite being taken captive.

Also, really addicted to the full version of the intro. Been linking it to people all day, and almost everyone seems to like it just as much.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Night Huntress said:


> Bored of people assuming willpower, confidence, strength, and straightforwardness is exclusive to Se. Tbh the more and more Ne types I meet irl, the more I'm convinced this stereotype is so bad, because you see confident and decisive people of every function combination.
> 
> Actually I feel like this is true for every trait that people paste onto different types. People are a mix of so many different traits and typology is just simply incapable of explaining all of them or accurately predicting all the patterns in someone's life.
> 
> So if people could stop glorifying themselves by means of a label, that would be real nice...
> 
> /endrant


I see your point. I mean, I'm not exactly an Se type myself but I have done some pretty badass acts of confidence and strength in my life. Just not as many as the people we call Se doms 

It is important to remember that everyone uses all the functions, and even the ones your type is "bad" at are used by you. And you aren't automatically going to fail at or even seem bad at your weaknesses every time all the time. That's just making excuses. Similarly you won't always excel at every one of your strengths. Ever seen a depressed SLE with no drive to do anything? It does happen. Some would argue it doesn't. I disagree. People are people, label or not.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Jakuri said:


> ^ From an Se dual-seeker no less, so all is forgiven. :kitteh:


I feel the need to applaud this wickedly awesome comment. *claps hands gleefully*


----------



## Entropic

Verity said:


> My favorite series right now is probably Black Sails tbh. Game of Thrones has turned to shit, and Vikings hasn't engaged me enough plot-wise to be contenders.
> 
> Apparently Pizzolatto was rushed into creating season 2 by HBO, which explains alot.


I agree, that explains a lot. I do think they could and should have told what happened in the past though, as opposed to creating an entirely new plot, especially seeing how they implied that there was so much material to work with but was only mentioned in passing. That way you wouldn't take away from Rust's catharsis and character development that created so much finality to the season ending, but you could retain both him and even Marty as main casts. I think that would have been interesting, especially in order to flesh out both characters more, to see what happened to them and how they ended up together, so a bit more of a parallel-esque storytelling and it would still build and continue on the sentimentalism towards the first season, creating that "oh I know what's coming" feeling. Kind of like what they did in the ending for Crisis Core:






True Detective is nothing without Rust though, that's just how it is. He's too much of a charismatic lead and defined the show and its tone.

I quit GoT after season 3 tbh, I could already tell at that point it wasn't necessarily going anywhere. Tries too hard to be sensational and it felt more like torture porn than it did some actual genuine storytelling, lol. Also, I don't think I ever ended up caring particularly for any specific character to give enough of a damn to know what happens to them next. Some were likable, but I didn't relate to any of them in any particular way.

Penny Dreadful went to shit too, apparently. I've yet to watch season 3, but they say it's equivalent to Dexter so atm I'm just like fuck that shit, I don't even wanna try, which is unfortunate, because I began to grow really fond of Chandler as a character. He was very relatable.


----------



## owlet

Verity said:


> My favorite series right now is probably Black Sails tbh. Game of Thrones has turned to shit, and Vikings hasn't engaged me enough plot-wise to be contenders.
> 
> Apparently Pizzolatto was rushed into creating season 2 by HBO, which explains alot.


The only series I've seen that hasn't had moments of going downhill have been Fargo season 1 and 2. One of the best shows I've seen in years.


----------



## Verity

Night Huntress said:


> Ah! I liked when he said "I don't see him as a slave; he is a responsible man." It's sweet because Athelstan has another shot at a honorable life, and because he isn't being disrespected despite being taken captive.
> 
> Also, really addicted to the full version of the intro. Been linking it to people all day, and almost everyone seems to like it just as much.


Yes, he's also pretty much Ragnar's only true friend because of that, like, they don't look at each other through the lens of preconceived labels. Circumstance kinda demands that Ragnar holds everyone else away from his heart in order to establish himself as the leader, and Athelstan is only accepted by the others once he begins conforming to their culture, so in a way they're both outsiders, unified by a shared dream. 

And yeah, the song is great. I really like this one too, which is made by the same artist together with her brother:







Entropic said:


> I agree, that explains a lot. I do think they could and should have told what happened in the past though, as opposed to creating an entirely new plot, especially seeing how they implied that there was so much material to work with but was only mentioned in passing. That way you wouldn't take away from Rust's catharsis and character development that created so much finality to the season ending, but you could retain both him and even Marty as main casts. I think that would have been interesting, especially in order to flesh out both characters more, to see what happened to them and how they ended up together, so a bit more of a parallel-esque storytelling and it would still build and continue on the sentimentalism towards the first season, creating that "oh I know what's coming" feeling. Kind of like what they did in the ending for Crisis Core:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True Detective is nothing without Rust though, that's just how it is. He's too much of a charismatic lead and defined the show and its tone.


Well, however much I'd like to see Rust and Marty return, I kinda liked the fact that the past was left somewhat ambiguous. I felt that the circumstances that led up to the beginning of the series were just there to set up the tone. After all, does it really matter how exactly Rust's daughter died and how his marriage failed for instance? I feel that the specifics are kinda insignificant because we know the things we need to know. It'd be interesting from an exposition standpoint to see it on the screen I guess, but at the same time I feel that I don't really need to know since the first season already fleshed out the two characters brilliantly.

However, I recently watched a film called _The Invitation_, and although it lacked some depth in contrast I feel that it shared a certain tone with TD season 1, if that's any comfort. I recommend it. 



> I quit GoT after season 3 tbh, I could already tell at that point it wasn't necessarily going anywhere. Tries too hard to be sensational and it felt more like torture porn than it did some actual genuine storytelling, lol. Also, I don't think I ever ended up caring particularly for any specific character to give enough of a damn to know what happens to them next. Some were likable, but I didn't relate to any of them in any particular way.


I enjoyed watching it up to season 5, where it really took a turn for the worse. Back in season 3 it was interesting because despite having read the books I was still awed by some things. Like, the emotional investment still meant something. When a certain character that everyone hated was murdered for example, it didn't feel 100% satisfactory and still left a bitter taste in my mouth, probably thanks to decent directing and writing. And nearly everything still made narrative sense.

Nothing has made me feel like that in the last two seasons, and it seems like the writers really underestimate their audience when plotlines are thrown away in favor of shocking action-packed moments, nonsensical character actions and unnecessary speeches. Apparently Martin had a falling out with the producers since he wanted more episodes per season in order to bring several of the more subtle book-plots into the series, but I think they said no for budget reasons and because it wouldn't make the show very friendly to the casual watcher.



> Penny Dreadful went to shit too, apparently. I've yet to watch season 3, but they say it's equivalent to Dexter so atm I'm just like fuck that shit, I don't even wanna try, which is unfortunate, because I began to grow really fond of Chandler as a character. He was very relatable.


I was told the same thing, but I really liked the first two seasons despite the minor faults, and since I don't put much stock in general opinion I wanted to judge it for myself despite the negativity. For all the problems with the sudden ending, Chandler's story in particular was resolved quite well imo.



owlet said:


> The only series I've seen that hasn't had moments of going downhill have been Fargo season 1 and 2. One of the best shows I've seen in years.


Oh yeah, I completely forgot about Fargo. I agree. It's perhaps the one show I can't find any obvious fault with. Writing, directing and acting are all really great. The only slight problem I find with it is that the story doesn't totally appeal to me personally, in the way True Detective season 1 did for instance.


----------



## Entropic

@Verity I was thinking more about the drugs and working undercover and how he just broke apart. I agree about the marriage and the death of his daughter, that didn't need more exposition. I would like to see how Marty and Maggie met though, and exactly what made him lose interest in the marriage outside of "stress issues". Clearly that must have been there from the beginning.

And I'm going to watch season 3 anyway at some point since I agree, I don't put much stock in consensus opinion but I do think I've lost some interest especially since I know it's supposed to be the final season. 

In general though, what I think I really yearn for atm is a truly good anime to watch but I haven't really been following new releases either, so.


----------



## Verity

Entropic said:


> @Verity I was thinking more about the drugs and working undercover and how he just broke apart. I agree about the marriage and the death of his daughter, that didn't need more exposition. I would like to see how Marty and Maggie met though, and exactly what made him lose interest in the marriage outside of "stress issues". Clearly that must have been there from the beginning.
> 
> And I'm going to watch season 3 anyway at some point since I agree, I don't put much stock in consensus opinion but I do think I've lost some interest especially since I know it's supposed to be the final season.
> 
> In general though, what I think I really yearn for atm is a truly good anime to watch but I haven't really been following new releases either, so.


Concerning Marty's backstory, I don't think the relationship was necessarily unbalanced from the start. I remember Pizzolatto talking about Marty's motivations in an interview, and how one's personal and marital narrative changes when you approach middle-age, which might manifest itself in infidelity, but as the older Marty says, his primary sin was inattention towards the people that really mattered. In essence, as he grew older he became consumed by his personal story and was incapable of really caring enough about his family, hence the infidelity. What made him grow as a character was the fact that with age he realized that he didn't actually deserve them at the time.
Like I wrote, I'd absolutely love to see "True Detective: The Untold Story", but I doubt it'd add much to the overall story since all the pieces are already there in season 1, ready to be assembled/interpreted. Which is also why I love it. 

McConaughey apparently stated that he'd really like to reprise the role of Rust, so maybe we'll see that at some point.

I've never been much of an anime fan tbh. I like some manga(s?) such as Death Note or Bleach, but I easily lose interest when I watch the anime for some reason.


----------



## Entropic

Verity said:


> Concerning Marty's backstory, I don't think the relationship was necessarily unbalanced from the start. I remember Pizzolatto talking about Marty's motivations in an interview, and how one's personal and marital narrative changes when you approach middle-age, which might manifest itself in infidelity, but as the older Marty says, his primary sin was inattention towards the people that really mattered. In essence, as he grew older he became consumed by his personal story and was incapable of really caring enough about his family, hence the infidelity. What made him grow as a character was the fact that with age he realized that he didn't actually deserve them at the time.
> Like I wrote, I'd absolutely love to see "True Detective: The Untold Story", but I doubt it'd add much to the overall story since all the pieces are already there in season 1, ready to be assembled/interpreted. Which is also why I love it.
> 
> McConaughey apparently stated that he'd really like to reprise the role of Rust, so maybe we'll see that at some point.
> 
> I've never been much of an anime fan tbh. I like some manga(s?) such as Death Note or Bleach, but I easily lose interest when I watch the anime for some reason.


Ok, I didn't know that, but you're right about that. Still, I think it'd be nice to see them meet. 

And huh, ok, I didn't know that but I think it was a challenging role for him so I think it makes sense any actor would like that. It's not often there are characters written like that. 

As for Death Note, blech, personally. Misa made me quit and she did so literally. Bleach was fine up to a point but I quit because I think it lost a lot of its conceptual essence after a while and just became more of a watered down version of itself. 

You've never seen NGE? I would recommend Darker than Black too, you may like that one. It's kind of a bit like True Detective meets Bleach (and I realize that comparison probably makes little sense without having seen it).


----------



## Psithurism

Night Huntress said:


> what the fuck


Put some respect on that video.


----------



## Vermillion

Entropic said:


> At least it wasn't:


It wasn't before you made it become about this... >_>



Verglas said:


> Put some respect on that video.


heeelll naw. My street name is Maximum Disrespect.


----------



## Entropic

Night Huntress said:


> It wasn't before you made it become about this... >_>


What is this?


----------



## Entropic

Been watching breaking bad, no regrets. The series is quite funny from a typological perspective though, because it tends to really display intertype really well. Some thoughts on types:

Walter - SLI. His Ne seeking is at such odds with everyone else being Se valuing. I used to think he's a 9 in the enneagram but as the series progresses I honestly can't say anymore. He has a 3 fix though. 
Skyler - SLE 2w1. Funny combination for sure. 
Walter Jr. - ILI.
Hank - SLE 7w6.
Marie - ESI. 
Jesse - LSI 6w7 4xX 8xX SO/SX probably. 
Walters creepy friend that offered him a job - EIE. 

Most of the drug world characters are beta in some for and a majority of the characters are all Se ego which I find funny especially since Walter is the only delta in the show.


----------



## Recede

Entropic said:


> Been watching breaking bad, no regrets. The series is quite funny from a typological perspective though, because it tends to really display intertype really well. Some thoughts on types:
> 
> Walter - SLI. His Ne seeking is at such odds with everyone else being Se valuing. I used to think he's a 9 in the enneagram but as the series progresses I honestly can't say anymore. He has a 3 fix though.
> Skyler - SLE 2w1. Funny combination for sure.
> Walter Jr. - ILI.
> Hank - SLE 7w6.
> Marie - ESI.
> Jesse - LSI 6w7 4xX 8xX SO/SX probably.
> Walters creepy friend that offered him a job - EIE.
> 
> Most of the drug world characters are beta in some for and a majority of the characters are all Se ego which I find funny especially since Walter is the only delta in the show.


Can you give some examples of how Walter is Ne seeking? I'm curious what it looks like. No spoilers though, since I'm only in season 3. For his enneagram I thought 9 in the very beginning and now I think 8w9 or possibly 5. I agree with the 3 fix, he wears a mask.


----------



## Verity

Entropic said:


> Most of the drug world characters are beta in some for and a majority of the characters are all Se ego which I find funny especially since Walter is the only delta in the show.


I dunno how far you've seen, but I'm fairly sure Mike who appears somewhere around season 3 is another Delta ST(8w9), and Gus could be EII.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Recede said:


> Can you give some examples of how Walter is Ne seeking? I'm curious what it looks like. No spoilers though, since I'm only in season 3. For his enneagram I thought 9 in the very beginning and now I think 8w9 or possibly 5. I agree with the 3 fix, he wears a mask.


He doesn't at all. Walt is an outside the box thinker capable of seeing things from many different angles. He is the novel thinker. Not the one seeking the novel thinker.

SLIs are not usually extensively focused on power politics or hierarchies, exercising control over others, or outwardly flaunting their status or strength. They usually regard such matters with utter disinterest, and may feel bothered by environments where such expressions of power are the norm.


LOL


----------



## Entropic

Recede said:


> Can you give some examples of how Walter is Ne seeking? I'm curious what it looks like. No spoilers though, since I'm only in season 3. For his enneagram I thought 9 in the very beginning and now I think 8w9 or possibly 5. I agree with the 3 fix, he wears a mask.


For example in episode 9 in season 2, Jesse and Walter are stuck in the middle of nowhere and on the verge of dying from dehydration, and at some point Jesse goes something like, "can't you think of something? You're the smart guy, so can't you do XYZ..." and he goes on a rant about all the possible things that could help solve their problem (not necessarily always probable), and Walter responds to that immediately and comes up with the idea of making a new battery. 

Also, in season 1, they had a family meeting because Skyler wanted to bring in the entire family in order to offer her and Walter support, and they all sit down and Skyler passes along this "talk pillow" in order to signify who has the right to speak up and express their feelings honestly. When it finally gets to Walter's turn, Walter goes on a long rant about how he felt that his family never allowed him to explore his own needs and wants by creating options for him to consider, as opposed to constantly telling him what he should be doing because it would be the best future course of action. Because Walt's close family are all Se-valuing and most of them Se egos, none of them are particularly inclined to think about possibilities or options. Skyler's need for Ni was also obvious in this particular scene, as she was looking for ways to help her and the family move forward. Walter wasn't so interested in where they were going as much as he simply wanted ways to develop himself and his own desires, which from the perspective of typology, is very delta NF-seeking. This is because delta NFs are naturally attuned to wanting to develop the potential of people based on what they personally desire.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Entropic said:


> For example in episode 9 in season 2, Jesse and Walter are stuck in the middle of nowhere and on the verge of dying from dehydration, and at some point Jesse goes something like, "can't you think of something? You're the smart guy, so can't you do XYZ..." and he goes on a rant about all the possible things that could help solve their problem (not necessarily always probable), and Walter responds to that immediately and comes up with the idea of making a new battery.
> 
> Also, in season 1, they had a family meeting because Skyler wanted to bring in the entire family in order to offer her and Walter support, and they all sit down and Skyler passes along this "talk pillow" in order to signify who has the right to speak up and express their feelings honestly. When it finally gets to Walter's turn, Walter goes on a long rant about how he felt that his family never allowed him to explore his own needs and wants by creating options for him to consider, as opposed to constantly telling him what he should be doing because it would be the best future course of action. Because Walt's close family are all Se-valuing and most of them Se egos, none of them are particularly inclined to think about possibilities or options. Skyler's need for Ni was also obvious in this particular scene, as she was looking for ways to help her and the family move forward. Walter wasn't so interested in where they were going as much as he simply wanted ways to develop himself and his own desires, which from the perspective of typology, is very delta NF-seeking. This is because delta NFs are naturally attuned to wanting to develop the potential of people based on what they personally desire.


Two guys sitting around brainstorming is not Ne or Ne seeking. It is a basic human trait. 

It is Walt who is looking forward and trying to give them a life when he is gone.

And why would be he get along with those drug dealer idiots? That has nothing to do with type. Most adults I know couldn't stand those clowns, much less any high school teacher I have. 

Walt wants power.

Not sure how far you are into the show but Walt basically turns into a wizard. Nobody is smarter than him or outhinks him. Nobody outflanks him.


----------



## Vermillion

Recede said:


> For his enneagram I thought 9 in the very beginning and now I think 8w9 or possibly 5. I agree with the 3 fix, he wears a mask.


I considered 8w9 for him too, because he certainly doesn't seem like the 9 he was in the beginning. At this point I have a hard time seeing him as anything than a competency type. He is always one step ahead of everyone (or so he strives to be), and that is how he gains his power. By knowing more, being more meticulous, and planning smarter.

Compare these two videos:






Frank is the quintessential unhealthy 8, and he's all about the "brutal fucking truth" at all times, and continuously stresses how he gets where he is by fighting the world, working his ass off, and being a survivor. Like every reactive type, he reacts to people's statements and in typical 8 style, seeks to drag them down and fight dirty with them. He isn't concerned about standards of how to be, whether internal or external -- he chooses to be as nasty or as professional as the context demands.






Walter doesn't seem to intimidate like Frank does. He always sets the standards and the boundaries first. You see it with Skyler here, with Gretchen, with Jesse -- almost everyone. "Who do you think I am?" "Do you really know who I am?" He always starts by redefining the boundaries in the situation to make it clear that "no, I am better/stronger than you think I am". Frank isn't concerned with proving that, because as far as he is concerned, competency proves itself by actions. He isn't neurotic about it. But Walter never fails to keep stressing how he does it better, knows stuff better, and of course, how imbecilic everyone else is for thinking otherwise. (God, poor Jesse. He suffers so much of Walt's ranting.)

Frank is rarely ever resentful or repressed, but Walter's entire life has been characterized by resentment, dissatisfaction, and the gradually culminating expression of irrational and unbridled anger. Possible 1 influence? What do you think?

I've only finished the second season, so I may have a clearer idea of his type as time progresses.


----------



## Recede

Night Huntress said:


> I considered 8w9 for him too, because he certainly doesn't seem like the 9 he was in the beginning. At this point I have a hard time seeing him as anything than a competency type. He is always one step ahead of everyone (or so he strives to be), and that is how he gains his power. By knowing more, being more meticulous, and planning smarter.
> 
> Compare these two videos:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank is the quintessential unhealthy 8, and he's all about the "brutal fucking truth" at all times, and continuously stresses how he gets where he is by fighting the world, working his ass off, and being a survivor. Like every reactive type, he reacts to people's statements and in typical 8 style, seeks to drag them down and fight dirty with them. He isn't concerned about standards of how to be, whether internal or external -- he chooses to be as nasty or as professional as the context demands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Walter doesn't seem to intimidate like Frank does. He always sets the standards and the boundaries first. You see it with Skyler here, with Gretchen, with Jesse -- almost everyone. "Who do you think I am?" "Do you really know who I am?" He always starts by redefining the boundaries in the situation to make it clear that "no, I am better/stronger than you think I am". Frank isn't concerned with proving that, because as far as he is concerned, competency proves itself by actions. He isn't neurotic about it. But Walter never fails to keep stressing how he does it better, knows stuff better, and of course, how imbecilic everyone else is for thinking otherwise. (God, poor Jesse. He suffers so much of Walt's ranting.)
> 
> Frank is rarely ever resentful or repressed, but Walter's entire life has been characterized by resentment, dissatisfaction, and the gradually culminating expression of irrational and unbridled anger. Possible 1 influence? What do you think?
> 
> I've only finished the second season, so I may have a clearer idea of his type as time progresses.


You know, it's interesting you suggest 1 because I've actually been wondering if he could be a 1. He really reminds me a lot of my dad who is a 1 (and some kind of ST type), to where they could easily be the same type. I see a lot of 1-ish wrath, the way he's critical of everyone around him, and a need for competency where he refuses to accept influence from anyone or admit to being wrong, and sees others as incompetent. All of his actions seem to be fueled by anger or resentment, like the way he refused to accept any financial aid from that one person because he couldn't stand her. 

But I'm not sure if that video's a great example because I thought it seemed more 8, actually. He was basically saying that he's so important and powerful that he's invincible and fearless, that he is the one others should be afraid of. (Motivations - "to convince themselves and others of their centrality and importance" and "to be invincible, unassailable, invulnerable") Ones also get angry and resist control or criticism, and they can be intimidating, but their style is less narcissistic and more like a self-justifying lecture, as if they were saying "Look, I'm a reasonable person, I've done XYZ, I work hard all the time, and this is how you repay me?" That's why I'm hesitant to see him as a 1, because it doesn't seem like he cares much about being seen as reasonable.


----------



## Recede

Night Huntress said:


> I considered 8w9 for him too, because he certainly doesn't seem like the 9 he was in the beginning. At this point I have a hard time seeing him as anything than a competency type. He is always one step ahead of everyone (or so he strives to be), and that is how he gains his power. By knowing more, being more meticulous, and planning smarter.


Also, that aspect could be disintegration to 5. His motivation is power and to be invincible, but the more threats arise and pressure increases, the more he has to compensate by actually becoming competent enough to keep the threats at bay, so he has to be very hard on himself and is hard on everyone around him as well because he's stressed out. Everything has to be thoroughly planned out and done perfectly or he won't be able to survive and keep his power.


----------



## Entropic

Recede said:


> *But I'm not sure if that video's a great example because I thought it seemed more 8, actually. He was basically saying that he's so important and powerful that he's invincible and fearless, that he is the one others should be afraid of. (Motivations - "to convince themselves and others of their centrality and importance" and "to be invincible, unassailable, invulnerable")* Ones also get angry and resist control or criticism, and they can be intimidating, but their style is less narcissistic and more like a self-justifying lecture, as if they were saying "Look, I'm a reasonable person, I've done XYZ, I work hard all the time, and this is how you repay me?" That's why I'm hesitant to see him as a 1, because it doesn't seem like he cares much about being seen as reasonable.


I am not sure I agree with the bolded, because while I agree with that he's expressing that desire on an objective or more literal level, he's not operating from an underlying assumption that he _is_ the most powerful. Compare to Frank who would never say "I am the most powerful" because he doesn't have to, and this is because he assumes he already is. Walter doesn't seem to assume that he is the most powerful, but that he is always right. Rather, it is his sense of rightness that gives him the right to power, because being right means he is also intrinsically more competent than those that are not right. The reason he keeps bossing Jesse around is because he thinks he is more right than Jesse is; if he let Jesse have more control it would mean doing things the wrong way so it is better to take charge and be in power.

In this regard 1s and 8s can resemble each other, because both types can be very assertive in their idea of how things ought to be, but the 8 idea of how things ought to be is always based on a notion of fairness and the 8 to not feel that they are being controlled. Walter doesn't seem to care about whether is controlled or controlling in that sense, as long as things are done the right way (also, he doesn't seem to care much about independence in the 8-5 sense at all; look at Rust Cohle from True Detective as an example of how 8s can take on the more loner-esque and detached traits of type 5 in order to feel that they are still in control). He is also not concerned about notions of fairness, which becomes very obvious whenever he has a conflict with Jesse, as Jesse (as an 8 fix) tends to scold Walter for not taking personal responsibility for his own actions that affected the outcome. Jesse keeps trying to show how Walter and he are in the shit together and to solely blame Jesse is therefore unfair.

Also, I think your example of 1ish indignation actually fits type 2 much better than type 1. Look at Skyler as the resident 2, as she pulls this stunt several times and has openly admitted several times that she wants people to notice all the things she does for them in addition to seeking people to reassure her of her own value (and her line to 8 becomes more obvious as the show goes on, as she becomes more assertive and seeking to direct how she wants things to be like).


----------



## Recede

Entropic said:


> Also, I think your example of 1ish indignation actually fits type 2 much better than type 1. Look at Skyler as the resident 2, as she pulls this stunt several times and has openly admitted several times that she wants people to notice all the things she does for them in addition to seeking people to reassure her of her own value (and her line to 8 becomes more obvious as the show goes on, as she becomes more assertive and seeking to direct how she wants things to be like).


I was kind of thinking that too as I wrote it, I could certainly see a 2 giving that kind of lecture. I had thought 1w9 for my dad but now I think he might actually have a 2 wing. Well, no wonder I've sometimes had a hard time telling apart 1 and 2, I may have been attributing 2 wing aspects to 1. Well this is interesting.


----------



## Verity

I'd say Walt is a 9w1. He only actually becomes calculating and pragmatic when put under stress and it's not really his natural state, and he starts disintegrating really hard when he loses connection to his family. He also has this 1-ish moral self-justification thing going that you don't see in an 8 such as Mike for example. Granted, it could also be a 3-ish quality, depending on context.


----------



## piano

I'm rereading the Millenium series but this time I'm not just mindlessly skimming the content. I went in with an open mind in terms of her socionics type, after seeing @Night Huntress type her SEE, though it was more of a lingering, background thought than anything, and I can actually see it now. I'm posting about it here because I'm curious if any other Gamma SFs could relate to her mentality? Because I never once thought she was insane, sociopathic, whatever other diagnoses the characters in the novel gave her.

Mainly the way that she sizes people up and her immediate response to people who intrude on her personal space, or those who try to control and command her. I think she's well within reason, most of the time. In fact, it's one of the few instances, maybe the only instance, where I've actually felt satisfied with a fictional character's (re)actions. It's like the opposite of that feeling you get during horror movies when the characters do the exact opposite of what you feel they should do. She did _exactly_ what I thought she should've done, or what I thought was fair/reasonable.

I'm also kind of curious to hear your thoughts on Holger Palmgren's type. I'm thinking IxI. His line of work (well, what he dedicated his life to doing, helping troubled youth) suggests IEI, but the way he interacts with her and the way he advises her has me leaning ILI (but I'm still new to socionics so I don't know, I could be wrong). Ni ego for sure, though.


----------



## Vermillion

ok not what i meant said:


> I'm rereading the Millenium series but this time I'm not just mindlessly skimming the content. I went in with an open mind in terms of her socionics type, after seeing @*Night Huntress* type her SEE, though it was more of a lingering, background thought than anything, and I can actually see it now. I'm posting about it here because I'm curious if any other Gamma SFs could relate to her mentality? Because I never once thought she was insane, sociopathic, whatever other diagnoses the characters in the novel gave her.
> 
> Mainly the way that she sizes people up and her immediate response to people who intrude on her personal space, or those who try to control and command her. I think she's well within reason, most of the time. In fact, it's one of the few instances, maybe the only instance, where I've actually felt satisfied with a fictional character's (re)actions. It's like the opposite of that feeling you get during horror movies when the characters do the exact opposite of what you feel they should do. She did _exactly_ what I thought she should've done, or what I thought was fair/reasonable.


I like Lisbeth very much. She is an insanely well-written character, and honestly, I don't think only gammas would think that, because she just fills up this great niche in fiction that few others do. Her decisions are really reasonable and well thought through.

I can see how many people would consider her a bitch, though, or an uninteresting person. As she is the main character though, it's a lot easier for people to empathize with her, regardless of type preferences. 

I enjoy her mentality very much because it's super refreshing for me to see an introverted, analytical, and socially maladjusted SEE. Just goes to show how varied people of a type can be. I think the other diagnoses of "insane" or "sociopathic" come from characters with an agenda intended at suppressing her in the first place, seeing as everyone who gets to be actual friends with her likes her and thinks she is a strongly moral, reliable, and intelligent person.



> I'm also kind of curious to hear your thoughts on Holger Palmgren's type. I'm thinking IxI. His line of work (well, what he dedicated his life to doing, helping troubled youth) suggests IEI, but the way he interacts with her and the way he advises her has me leaning ILI (but I'm still new to socionics so I don't know, I could be wrong). Ni ego for sure, though.


I've always thought IEI, myself, because he's so focused on smoothly and empathetically teaching her social graces by giving her room to express herself, understanding her true feelings and intentions, and whatnot. I think an ILI would be more dismissive of that approach and pick a more methodical one. But I'm open to hearing other arguments.


----------



## sinaasappel

Alpha quadra is deded so I'm invading :ninja:


----------



## Entropic

Verity said:


> I'd say Walt is a 9w1. He only actually becomes calculating and pragmatic when put under stress and it's not really his natural state, and he starts disintegrating really hard when he loses connection to his family. He also has this 1-ish moral self-justification thing going that you don't see in an 8 such as Mike for example. Granted, it could also be a 3-ish quality, depending on context.


Well, how would you define his natural state? My dad is a 9w1, and he's nothing like Walter when stressed out. He tunes out by receding into the background as to avoid conflict and retain his sense of inner balance.


----------



## Verity

Entropic said:


> Well, how would you define his natural state? My dad is a 9w1, and he's nothing like Walter when stressed out. He tunes out by receding into the background as to avoid conflict and retain his sense of inner balance.


I can't really say what his natural state is, but it seems like he continually tries to avoid conflict until no other options are left and shit hits the fan, and when he enters that mindset he becomes acutely aware of all forms of danger, which he tries to eliminate out of necessity, which in turn over a prolonged period makes him become ruthless and distrusting, while at the same time makes him clutch on even harder to his family. Suddenly nobody but him is aware of the _real_ danger. I mean, he did spend most of his life tuned out from his own needs and wants. He's kinda similar to Rick(and a few other characters like Carol or Morgan) from _The Walking Dead_ in that way. I could see a case for 3w2 core I guess, but his disintegration seems to be more towards 6 than 9 from where I'm standing. Just look at the scene where he has that guy tied up in the basement, and how he risks his own life just to ensure a peaceful outcome.


----------



## Entropic

Verity said:


> I can't really say what his natural state is, but it seems like he continually tries to avoid conflict until no other options are left and shit hits the fan, and when he enters that mindset he becomes acutely aware of all forms of danger, which he tries to eliminate out of necessity, which in turn over a prolonged period makes him become ruthless and distrusting, while at the same time makes him clutch on even harder to his family. Suddenly nobody but him is aware of the _real_ danger. I mean, he did spend most of his life tuned out from his own needs and wants. He's kinda similar to Rick(and a few other characters like Carol or Morgan) from _The Walking Dead_ in that way. I could see a case for 3w2 core I guess, but his disintegration seems to be more towards 6 than 9 from where I'm standing. Just look at the scene where he has that guy tied up in the basement, and how he risks his own life just to ensure a peaceful outcome.


Sure, but at some level why can't you attribute that to simply being human and experience a baseline level of empathy? I mean, why would an 8 act differently in that situation, for example? For most "normal" people, I think avoiding the conflict of killing the guy is what anyone would want regardless of type. I have a hard time seeing a connection to 6 for Walter, especially since we can easily compare him to Jesse who is the actual 6 and they aren't overly alike in conflict whatsoever, nor do I see Walter taking on the more questioning attitude of type 6. If anything, Walter becomes more steadfast in his sense of rightness. A big problem is that Jesse and Walter don't seem to get where they both are coming from, which I think would be easier if they shared connection points. 

Also, couldn't Walter's intrinsic conflict avoidance actually be attributed to the fact he's ultimately a delta ST? And yes, he spent most of his life being tuned out, I was thinking 9 for him initially also, but as the story progresses I have a much harder time seeing it. It seems to me that he carries a great deal of resentment in a way I have a hard time seeing a 9 doing.


----------



## Verity

Entropic said:


> Sure, but at some level why can't you attribute that to simply being human and experience a baseline level of empathy? I mean, why would an 8 act differently in that situation, for example? For most "normal" people, I think avoiding the conflict of killing the guy is what anyone would want regardless of type. I have a hard time seeing a connection to 6 for Walter, especially since we can easily compare him to Jesse who is the actual 6 and they aren't overly alike in conflict whatsoever, nor do I see Walter taking on the more questioning attitude of type 6. If anything, Walter becomes more steadfast in his sense of rightness. A big problem is that Jesse and Walter don't seem to get where they both are coming from, which I think would be easier if they shared connection points.
> 
> Also, couldn't Walter's intrinsic conflict avoidance actually be attributed to the fact he's ultimately a delta ST? And yes, he spent most of his life being tuned out, I was thinking 9 for him initially also, but as the story progresses I have a much harder time seeing it. It seems to me that he carries a great deal of resentment in a way I have a hard time seeing a 9 doing.


Oh, get me right, I'm not saying that the fact that he decided to spare the guy points to 9, but IIRC how he reached that decision through finding common ground and carefully connecting with the guy while exposing his own weakness, like, an 8 would probably be more like: "This is what's going to happen, if you do not have another suggestion?" making sure that he was the one still in charge, instead of letting the guy play him like a fiddle by showing how hard a decision it was by retreating.

Are you primarily considering 8 for him at this point?


----------



## Verity

Btw, for anyone thinking Walt is not an Si-base, watch the tenth episode of season 3 called "Fly". That episode kinda cemented it for me.


----------



## Entropic

@Verity the site is very buggy atm so I can't use the reply function, but I am considering 1 base, not 8. Also, do you have examples of this as the story progresses that is consistent with the image you have of him? Like I said, I think he seemed much more typical 9 in the beginning of season 1, but towards the end he didn't seem 9ish at all and this development seems consistent over the course of the story. Isn't it strange to type him based on how he were, as opposed to how he is?


----------



## Verity

Entropic said:


> @Verity the site is very buggy atm so I can't use the reply function, but I am considering 1 base, not 8. Also, do you have examples of this as the story progresses that is consistent with the image you have of him? Like I said, I think he seemed much more typical 9 in the beginning of season 1, but towards the end he didn't seem 9ish at all and this development seems consistent over the course of the story. Isn't it strange to type him based on how he were, as opposed to how he is?


No, but at the same time I can't come up with any other type that makes complete sense based on the overall portrayal. Sure, he's very 1-ish, but I don't see any 4-ish or 7-ish disintegration/integration traits, but I do see an overall tendency in him to lean towards the more counter-phobic side of 6 when he's stressed over long periods of time, and he becomes quite 3-ish when he settles in the heisenberg-persona. But maybe I'm attributing too much to those points. He definitely seems like a gut-type though, and I wouldn't exactly be opposed to 1-core.

On another note, what do you think of Gus? I think he could be a rare EII 8.


----------



## Communal Soap

I think Peep Show is very very gamma. Both of the main characters are clearly gamma NTs and a lot of the comedy comes from looking at every situation from multiple perspectives.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Verity said:


> Btw, for anyone thinking Walt is not an Si-base, watch the tenth episode of season 3 called "Fly". That episode kinda cemented it for me.



Why is that Si? That is perfectionism. 

*Types that value Si prefer to spend their time doing enjoyable activities rather than straining themselves to achieve goals. They like to believe that if activities are done with enjoyment, people will give them more effort and time, and also becoming more skilled at what they are doing in the long run. They believe that goals should suit people's intrinsic needs rather than shaped by the demands and constraints of the external world, and so do not try to force others into doing things they don't want to do. They also try to be easygoing and pleasant, preferring peaceful coexistence to conflict, except when their personal well-being or comfort is directly at stake.
*
Does this sound like Walt at all? Does he seem like a person who is involved in enjoyment? Easy going and pleasant? Si is laid back. Si chill. 

*In contrast to extroverted sensing (Se), is related to following one's own needs instead of focusing on some externally-driven conception of what is necessary to acquire or achieve. *

Walt cares nothing about himself or his body. It is about winning by some objective standard. He rejects his own needs to win by objective standards. SLI are not that harsh. Walt is harsh. He is a hardass. 

Somebody used the cop from The Leftovers as SLI. That is an SLI. That guy is softer and has less opinions and motivation. 

If anything, Walt's obsession with a fly is a type of hypochondria. OCD. So if Si base acts like Walt, does that mean Ni base are the biggest slobs ever? That they would let tons of flies all over and be hoarders? Let's see the logic from both sides. How does this relate to Ni? How would a Ni user or other user act?

If anything it shows disportionate response to sensory world which is a sign of lower sensing. Like hypochondria. Just because he is a good at making meth does not mean he can replicate pleasurable experiences for others. That isn't what it means. He is actually terrible at it. It is like creating a pleasant atmosphere for people based on who they are. Again, Walt sucks terrible at that. lol. 

Replicating sensory experiences is not chasing after flies. It is creating atmospheres for people to be comfortable in and Walt sucks at that. Even for himself. SLI can calm people down. Walt cannot. SLI are a calming presence. Walt is anything but that. 

Like he said about that plane crash. In a few hundred years, nobody will even remember it. lol. He is terrible with Si and Fe. 

I just see him as more Gamma than Delta. His attitude towards power seems Se. He is an underachiever but he didn't want to be. He wants to be big. He has a total victim attitude. The only reason he isn't big is because others stole his ideas. He is ruthless and calculating too. Vengeful. Business like. Ambitious. That could be Enneagram too but sounds a lot like Se valuing.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

And the idea of Jesse Pinkman being LSI is laughable. lol. He is closer to Ti polr than LSI.

LSIs are often arduous producers of logical structures, models, principles, rules, and order. In general, their lifestyle is at least partly organized according to the rules they impute to the world, which are paramount to their experiences. They may typically tend to conceptualize the world around them in terms of fixed categories, and can exhibit well-developed preferences for one category of things over another. Often, LSIs' interpretation of the world is directed towards existing social structures; their rules and guidelines pertaining to the behavior and actions of others; if LIIs are stereotypically the abstract physicists, building systems and thought structures that have little to do with "real world" life, LSIs might likewise stereotypically represent hard-line military officers, making sure that everyone stays in line. LSIs can often integrate into their rule-based framework the conventions of the predominant social order, and they may be vocally critical or judgmental of those that fail to follow the real or imagined conventions ascribed to them. LSIs can also sometimes be sticklers for minutiae in rule-based systems; they may have little sympathy or leeway for those individuals who require exemptions (along the lines of "no, sir, this bus must leave exactly at 7:30").Many LSIs give off a sense of certitude and absolution. They can quickly and easily schematize what is correct and incorrect according to the systems they are familiar with and may appear to be absolutely certain of their views, unable to represent any ambiguity in the principles that they put forward. This may take the form of stringent intellectual, political, or other viewpoints, or simply in a high degree of confidence in the principles they put forward towards the social environment around them. LSIs, moreso than any other type, are likely to have firmly unchanging views over a long period of time. Even when LSIs do not have firm, unchanging viewpoints, they may parade their current opinions with brash conviction, as though the logic of their thoughts is sound and irrefutable. Of course, many LSIs are much less extreme in their viewpoints, and can instead come across as apathetic about enforcing their viewpoints, or primarily sociable in their orientation.Intellectually, LSIs, like other Ti types, are often most interested in determining underlying principles, causal mechanisms, and systems to account for real-world phenomena. They may have a tendency see the principles that they develop as universal and without exception. Additionally, they usually tend to emphasize the consistency and importance of their espoused rules, principles or ideological perspectives to a greater extent than the external evidence supporting these rules, which is often a much less poignant aspect of their thought processes.

^^ Jesse Pinkman right there.

:confused3:


----------



## Verity

FearAndTrembling said:


> Why is that Si? That is perfectionism.


Because he's obsessed with a sensory detail that doesn't correlate with his personal sense of cleanliness and blows it's importance completely out of proportion when looking at potential consequences, and doesn't stop to consider whether it will actually amount to anything in the long run or take a step back and think about why he's so obsessed about it, which you could attribute to weak intuition.



> *Types that value Si prefer to spend their time doing enjoyable activities rather than straining themselves to achieve goals. They like to believe that if activities are done with enjoyment, people will give them more effort and time, and also becoming more skilled at what they are doing in the long run. They believe that goals should suit people's intrinsic needs rather than shaped by the demands and constraints of the external world, and so do not try to force others into doing things they don't want to do. They also try to be easygoing and pleasant, preferring peaceful coexistence to conflict, except when their personal well-being or comfort is directly at stake.
> *
> Does this sound like Walt at all? Does he seem like a person who is involved in enjoyment? Easy going and pleasant? Si is laid back. Si chill.


Well, from the top of my mind, you can look at how he worked with Gale, which is one of the times where he's not stressed by the circumstances. 






Or you could look at how he tries to act around his family. Especially in the beginning.

He doesn't fit the bill for Si-dom 100% if you look at the definition of it in a vacuum, but at the same time, Ni-doms are perpetually ruled by indecisiveness, lack of willpower, indolence, while at the same time they have a strong sense of what they want out of life in the long-term, which doesn't characterize Walt either. On the opposite actually, he never had a long-term idea of what he wanted, instead he took things on one step at a time as they came along through strong diligence. This is why you can't really just take the leading IE into account.



> *In contrast to extroverted sensing (Se), is related to following one's own needs instead of focusing on some externally-driven conception of what is necessary to acquire or achieve. *
> 
> Walt cares nothing about himself or his body. It is about winning by some objective standard. He rejects his own needs to win by objective standards. SLI are not that harsh. Walt is harsh. He is a hardass.


His main drive is primarily just to work with something he enjoys, which he tells himself he does to provide a comfortable life for his family and as to not leave them with nothing when he dies. Caring nothing about one's body is rejection of societal norms, which means his Si is not normative in a vacuum. He's also not naturally harsh or pushy and his unwillingness to assert himself is one of the reasons why he ended up where he did, but he can actually become fierce and unbending when the situation demands it(this is strong Se, since it's situational). I mean, the scenes where he actively asserts power are actually quite few. _SLIs tend to be very placid and demonstrate their aggression on infrequent basis. Usually this aggression is not spontaneous or pent-up, but rather a response to something or someone in their environment that is violating their expectations or causing damage to the immediate environment, such as a malfunctioning piece of equipment or a person who is carelessly interfering with existing resources. _ Sounds a little like how he acts around Jessie, no?



> Somebody used the cop from The Leftovers as SLI. That is an SLI. That guy is softer and has less opinions and motivation.



I'd argue that Kevin is more of an Si-sub with very pronounced Fi, in contrast to Walt who is much more of a creative subtype with obvious ethical problems. I dislike attributing opinions to sociotype, since enneagram usually plays a larger role in that area. If you want to see a decent example of an ILI protagonist, watch Mr. Robot(ILI-Ni protagonist) or Peaky Blinders(ILI-Te protagonist), and compare those guys to Walt.



> If anything, Walt's obsession with a fly is a type of hypochondria. OCD. So if Si base acts like Walt, does that mean Ni base are the biggest slobs ever? That they would let tons of flies all over and be hoarders? Let's see the logic from both sides. How does this relate to Ni? How would a Ni user or other user act?
> 
> If anything it shows disportionate response to sensory world which is a sign of lower sensing. Like hypochondria. Just because he is a good at making meth does not mean he can replicate pleasurable experiences for others. That isn't what it means. He is actually terrible at it. It is like creating a pleasant atmosphere for people based on who they are. Again, Walt sucks terrible at that. lol.




It's not weak sensing because the disportionate response is primarily directed towards the potential consequences.

There's no need to strawman my argument. It's partially right that if Si is low-dimensional or unvalued, obsessive cleanliness is often set aside. An Ni-dom would probably take a step back to get a clearer picture of whether it will actually lead to something before acting, and to consider his different options.(For example, a more plausible solution would be to talk to Gus or Mike and have him hire professionals to take care of it, if it really was a problem)



> Replicating sensory experiences is not chasing after flies. It is creating atmospheres for people to be comfortable in and Walt sucks at that. Even for himself. SLI can calm people down. Walt cannot. SLI are a calming presence. Walt is anything but that.
> 
> Like he said about that plane crash. In a few hundred years, nobody will even remember it. lol. He is terrible with Si and Fe.


This argument falls flat because Ni-doms are literally characterized by a state of inner calm, which their Si-ego conflictors have a hard time achieving. You also need to look at it in the context of where he is. If you compare him to Kevin from Leftovers, they both actually have a hard time not worrying and just chilling, but that frustration manifests itself very differently, in Walt's case it comes forth as repressed anger, and in Kevin's case an obsessive search for guidance. 

My SLI father often uses the saying "what will it matter in a hundred years?" as a way to sweep a discussion under the rug. I'd say it's just a diversion, and not really some strong intuitive insight about how events will develop. Could be normative Ni if I'd attribute it to some IE.



> I just see him as more Gamma than Delta. His attitude towards power seems Se. He is an underachiever but he didn't want to be. He wants to be big. He has a total victim attitude. The only reason he isn't big is because others stole his ideas. He is ruthless and calculating too. Vengeful. Business like. Ambitious. That could be Enneagram too but sounds a lot like Se valuing.


Power-seeking, while often symbiotic is not exclusive to Se-valuers, since people who have personal reasons other than a lust for pure control such as internalized anger at the world or paranoia have different motivations for seeking it, which is not always related to IEs. In a sense, everyone wants power, whether it's a means or an end is the question.
I think you are attributing a little too much to Ni and Se, and discounting the properties of Te. His primary satisfaction comes from his own industriousness and working towards a rational goal. Walt is just a very intelligent guy who also happens to be quick into action, and that's why he's able to get one step ahead of his peers alot of the time.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Verity said:


> Because he's obsessed with a sensory detail that doesn't correlate with his personal sense of cleanliness and blows it's importance completely out of proportion when looking at potential consequences, and doesn't stop to consider whether it will actually amount to anything in the long run or take a step back and think about why he's so obsessed about it, which you could attribute to weak intuition.
> 
> 
> Well, from the top of my mind, you can look at how he worked with Gale, which is one of the times where he's not stressed by the circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or you could look at how he tries to act around his family. Especially in the beginning.
> 
> He doesn't fit the bill for Si-dom 100% if you look at the definition of it in a vacuum, but at the same time, Ni-doms are perpetually ruled by indecisiveness, lack of willpower, indolence, while at the same time they have a strong sense of what they want out of life in the long-term, which doesn't characterize Walt either. On the opposite actually, he never had a long-term idea of what he wanted, instead he took things on one step at a time as they came along through strong diligence. This is why you can't really just take the leading IE into account.
> 
> 
> 
> His main drive is primarily just to work with something he enjoys, which he tells himself he does to provide a comfortable life for his family and as to not leave them with nothing when he dies. Caring nothing about one's body is rejection of societal norms, which means his Si is not normative in a vacuum. He's also not naturally harsh or pushy and his unwillingness to assert himself is one of the reasons why he ended up where he did, but he can actually become fierce and unbending when the situation demands it(this is strong Se, since it's situational). I mean, the scenes where he actively asserts power are actually quite few. _SLIs tend to be very placid and demonstrate their aggression on infrequent basis. Usually this aggression is not spontaneous or pent-up, but rather a response to something or someone in their environment that is violating their expectations or causing damage to the immediate environment, such as a malfunctioning piece of equipment or a person who is carelessly interfering with existing resources. _ Sounds a little like how he acts around Jessie, no?
> 
> 
> I'd argue that Kevin is more of an Si-sub with very pronounced Fi, in contrast to Walt who is much more of a creative subtype with obvious ethical problems. I dislike attributing opinions to sociotype, since enneagram usually plays a larger role in that area. If you want to see a decent example of an ILI protagonist, watch Mr. Robot(ILI-Ni protagonist) or Peaky Blinders(ILI-Te protagonist), and compare those guys to Walt.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not weak sensing because the disportionate response is primarily directed towards the potential consequences.
> 
> There's no need to strawman my argument. It's partially right that if Si is low-dimensional or unvalued, obsessive cleanliness is often set aside. An Ni-dom would probably take a step back to get a clearer picture of whether it will actually lead to something before acting, and to consider his different options.(For example, a more plausible solution would be to talk to Gus or Mike and have him hire professionals to take care of it, if it really was a problem)
> 
> 
> 
> This argument falls flat because Ni-doms are literally characterized by a state of inner calm, which their Si-ego conflictors have a hard time achieving. You also need to look at it in the context of where he is. If you compare him to Kevin from Leftovers, they both actually have a hard time not worrying and just chilling, but that frustration manifests itself very differently, in Walt's case it comes forth as repressed anger, and in Kevin's case an obsessive search for guidance.
> 
> My SLI father often uses the saying "what will it matter in a hundred years?" as a way to sweep a discussion under the rug. I'd say it's just a diversion, and not really some strong intuitive insight about how events will develop. Could be normative Ni if I'd attribute it to some IE.
> 
> 
> 
> Power-seeking, while often symbiotic is not exclusive to Se-valuers, since people who have personal reasons other than a lust for pure control such as internalized anger at the world or paranoia have different motivations for seeking it, which is not always related to IEs. In a sense, everyone wants power, whether it's a means or an end is the question.
> I think you are attributing a little too much to Ni and Se, and discounting the properties of Te. His primary satisfaction comes from his own industriousness and working towards a rational goal. Walt is just a very intelligent guy who also happens to be quick into action, and that's why he's able to get one step ahead of his peers alot of the time.


I think he has an idea of what will happen in the long run. He is like a surgeon scrubbing things down. He knows that it can be contaminated and doesn't want that. He knows exactly why he has a problem with that fly and what that fly could do to the future. 

So, people who don't stop to think why they are doing things have weak intuition?

Ni is not about long term strategy or inner calm. lol. That is Si. Inf fact, you just showed me a source that said SLI are placid. Are the ILIs on this board known for their inner calm or long term goals/strategy? That is a myth. 

Hey @*Entropic* what are your long term goals in life? 

Not caring about one's body is not "rejection of social norms". It is fear, toughness, etc. Men are known for not going to doctors and shit. It is fulfillment of social norms if anything. 

Yeah, he's really gonna bug Mike and Gus over a fuckin fly. I am sure they would love that. He doesn't like asking others for help. Don't you get that? He despises it. Maybe you are the one with low intuition. Try looking under the surface. It isn't about a fly. It is about control and solving things on your own. 

And see this thread:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/643618-ni-te-emergent-short-term-strategy.html


----------



## FearAndTrembling

@*Verity* let's use some real examples of this "inner calm" of Ni doms. Here is a list of some Ni doms on this forum: Kerik, Entropic, Zayamatin. All characterized by their inner calm of course. lol. Wtf. Seriously. Wake up.

Oh, and Mr Robot too. Another really calm guy you typed as Ni dom. Come on.


----------



## Immolate

I don't remember the specifics of the episode, but wasn't the overall point of the fly that Walt had lost control of the situation and more specifically his feelings? The fly as representation of everything he was trying to get a handle on? His guilt? I think there are good arguments about Si/Ni but the fly was a device to express a deeper truth about Walt and I'm not sure we should be taking his behavior at face value.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

lets mosey said:


> I don't remember the specifics of the episode, but wasn't the overall point of the fly that Walt had lost control of the situation and more specifically his feelings? The fly as representation of everything he was trying to get a handle on? His guilt? I think there are good arguments about Si/Ni but the fly was a device to express a deeper truth about Walt and I'm not sure we should be taking his behavior at face value.


Indeed. It is a part of a larger painting. Refusing to ask for help being a major narrative. So much pride. He does things himself.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

This should be Mr Robot's song. Nothing peaceful about his inner world at all. 






The lunatic is in my head
The lunatic is in my head
You raise the blade, you make the change
You re-arrange me 'till I'm sane
You lock the door
And throw away the key
There's someone in my head but it's not me.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Word Dispenser called Si the "zen" function. I think that is true. You are trying to equate that with Ni. It is Si. 

This is an example of a Si "zen" type. This hippy talking about aliens. Delta and Alpha are about zen and good vibes. Clean fun. Si. Just chilling. Chilling is Si. Ni doesn't "chill". Mr Robot doesn't chill.







like Charlie don't surf. Ni surfs. It is not still water. It is chaotic. 








THAT is actually a example of inferior Ne or low intuition. Stupid conspiracy theories.

Since others brought up their own personal experiences. My ESTx buddy thinks everything is a fucking conspiracy. Everything is rigged. All sports are rigged. He has no idea the complexity it would take to pull such a thing off and maintain for so long. It is just a simple answer to him. And another ESxx guy I know is just like him.

And shit like the moon landing. They cannot see the larger picture of why it happened. 

And why do they believe in that shit? Comfort! Si!


----------



## Verity

@FearAndTrembling

Not sure if you're just trolling, but judging from your past behavior I doubt this will lead to anything fruitful for either of us, and frankly I can't be arsed with intellectual dishonesty and constant strawmanning. I'm putting you on ignore. 

(it's secretly because you exposed the holy truth, and I'm just a sycophant unwilling to wake up)



lets mosey said:


> I don't remember the specifics of the episode, but wasn't the overall point of the fly that Walt had lost control of the situation and more specifically his feelings? The fly as representation of everything he was trying to get a handle on? His guilt? I think there are good arguments about Si/Ni but the fly was a device to express a deeper truth about Walt and I'm not sure we should be taking his behavior at face value.


Yes, thematically it represents a constant nudge on his shoulder because of the suppressed guilt, the schizm between him and Jessie and a deeper overall lack of control in his life, but I'm of the opinion that you can still use a character's behavior in such an instance as a basis for typing since it's ultimately just a very stressful situation, which is accounted for in Socionics(Although it doesn't add much clarity, unfortunately).


----------



## Immolate

Verity said:


> Yes, thematically it represents a constant nudge on his shoulder because of the suppressed guilt, the schizm between him and Jessie and a deeper overall lack of control in his life, but *I'm of the opinion that you can still use a character's behavior in such an instance as a basis for typing since it's ultimately just a very stressful situation*, which is accounted for in Socionics(Although it doesn't add much clarity, unfortunately).


Ah, I think the difference here is that I see the episode as the writers speaking to the audience rather than trying to convey any accurate portrayal of Walt's behavior. In other words, I took it more as, "This is what's going on with Walt internally," rather than, "Walt is the kind of guy who obsesses over a fly when he loses control of his life." I suppose you could say I didn't take the details such as the fly seriously and just left the episode with the message that Walt was enormously conflicted. (I hope I'm not misunderstanding you.)


----------



## FearAndTrembling

lets mosey said:


> Ah, I think the difference here is that I see the episode as the writers speaking to the audience rather than trying to convey any accurate portrayal of Walt's behavior. In other words, I took it more as, "This is what's going on with Walt internally," rather than, "Walt is the kind of guy who obsesses over a fly when he loses control of his life." I suppose you could say I didn't take the details such as the fly seriously and just left the episode with the message that Walt was enormously conflicted. (I hope I'm not misunderstanding you.)


Precisely. It is a symbol. Jungian notion of symbols. That is a more intuitive look at things. Metaphorical. Instead of just seeing it as a concrete situation. The basal mechanics of it. It is about the unseen dynamics.

Walt is a puppet basically. What is the puppeteer's will?

I mean, I have done some writing. You invent shit to put an idea across. You fabricate a situation. But it is the idea that counts, not the vehicle. Don't focus on the car. Focus on the driver.

Like, say you have an idea. You need scaffolding to support or build it. But the scaffolding is just there to allow the idea to be constructed. The scaffolding is not the message or the end. It is the means.

The show/cast is the board. The writer is "the man". Play the man controlling the board, not the board. Think like him.






*Vinnie*: He didn't teach you how to win, he taught you how not to lose. That's nothing to be proud of. You're playing not to lose, Josh. You've got to risk losing. You've got to risk everything. You've got to go to the edge of defeat. That's where you want to be, boy - on the edge of defeat.
*Josh Waitzkin*: But...
*Vinnie*: But what? Play. Never play the board, always the man. You've gotta play the man *playing* the board. Play *me*. I'm your opponent, you have to beat *me*. Not the board, beat *me*.


----------



## Verity

lets mosey said:


> Ah, I think the difference here is that I see the episode as the writers speaking to the audience rather than trying to convey any accurate portrayal of Walt's behavior. In other words, I took it more as, "This is what's going on with Walt internally," rather than, "Walt is the kind of guy who obsesses over a fly when he loses control of his life." I suppose you could say I didn't take the details such as the fly seriously and just left the episode with the message that Walt was enormously conflicted. (I hope I'm not misunderstanding you.)


Why does one exclude the other though? One of the reasons why I like Breaking Bad is because all the focus is brought down to exploration of character and drama.


----------



## Immolate

Verity said:


> Why does one exclude the other though? One of the reasons why I like Breaking Bad is because all the focus is brought down to exploration of character and drama.


Just the way I interpreted it. We all consume and interpret media in different ways.


----------



## vandieu

https://www.pinterest.com/edgarallen1816/ili/

Here's some people I think are ILI.


----------



## SheWolf

vandieu said:


> https://www.pinterest.com/edgarallen1816/ili/
> 
> Here's some people I think are ILI.


Tim Burton is usually typed at Alpha NT.


----------



## Transience

Night Huntress said:


> Shut up. YOU signed up for too much and you know it. Next time, cut yourself some slack, bb girl.


Yeah, but when I signed up for all of it, I didn't consider leaving some time free for other work that might come in. I was like, "Oh yeah, I can do all this shit, bring it on haha" when I signed up. And when all the other stuff came up, I couldn't re-organize, couldn't reschedule - nothing. All I could do was stare like a dumb idk, rabbit? And watch it all crumble :|


----------



## Entropic

The feels.


----------



## Communal Soap

Is the reviewer here a gamma NT? If not, what is he?


----------



## Entropic

Communal Soap said:


> Is the reviewer here a gamma NT? If not, what is he?


No way. That guy is an alpha NT. Seems like an ILE. The only thing he speaks about are rules and potentials, with a focus on the potentials.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Communal Soap said:


> Is the reviewer here a gamma NT? If not, what is he?


The game is very Alpha oriented and I'd agree with Entropic the reviewer is ILE. Although the game itself seems like it was designed by a lot of Betas with Rob Daviau himself being Delta, IMO.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

I would guess he is an ILE too. Also. I like him.


----------



## Communal Soap

Entropic said:


> No way. That guy is an alpha NT. Seems like an ILE. The only thing he speaks about are rules and potentials, with a focus on the potentials.


That makes sense. The NT part is obvious. I think I only thought he was gamma because I like him.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

SheWolf said:


> Tim Burton is usually typed at Alpha NT.


Alpha NT? Um no, he's a Gamma ESI. Although one could make a case for Ni-IEI. In fact, I think the dark themes do carry well for Ni-dominants IEI and ILI especially Ni subtypes of both, but I believe the most credible typings of Tim Burton is ESI.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Scoobyscoob said:


> Alpha NT? Um no, he's a Gamma ESI. Although one could make a case for Ni-IEI. In fact, I think the dark themes do carry well for Ni-dominants IEI and ILI especially Ni subtypes of both, but I believe the most credible typings of Tim Burton is ESI.


I f***ing love Tim Burton and ALL his work.


----------



## SheWolf

Scoobyscoob said:


> Alpha NT? Um no, he's a Gamma ESI. Although one could make a case for Ni-IEI. In fact, I think the dark themes do carry well for Ni-dominants IEI and ILI especially Ni subtypes of both, but I believe the most credible typings of Tim Burton is ESI.


Any type can be dark. Not just Ni/Se types.

Burton's films are laced with a certain light-heartedness despite the dark overall theme. I think his work is a great example of how Alpha, the supposed "sunshine and rainbows" quadra, is capable of being dark and creepy too but with a certain whimsy.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

SheWolf said:


> Any type can be dark. Not just Ni/Se types.
> 
> Burton's films are laced with a certain light-heartedness despite the dark overall theme. I think his work is a great example of how Alpha, the supposed "sunshine and rainbows" quadra, is capable of being dark and creepy too but with a certain whimsy.


I agree that any type can be dark but as a whole it's mostly the Ni types that are dark contrasted with Se types that tend to be more... on the light side. I think the Ne/Si quadras tend to not really be light or dark but to focus on neutrality and instead focus on good group atmosphere and pleasant sensations. 

Yes, I agree there's a certain merriness to the movies which I believe comes from Beta moreso than Alpha. Alpha in terms of value would be not really be into dark themes but would be more into merriment and festivities. Honestly, the darkest I think Ne/Si types could get would be to throw a Halloween costume party but with lots of music, food, conversation and some light hearted scaring. XD

But yeah, I think Tim Burton being ESI makes the most sense. Claymation is way too labor intensive for non Se valuing quadras to want to partake in, especially when easier alternatives existed at the time already. With Tim Burton movies there tends to be a theme of finding the right person to love which is very Fi in nature and overall very Gamma in nature as well. We're very couple oriented as a quadra, IMO.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Hey, thanks for arguing Beta orientation for the movies for me. Saves me the work, which I had already decided not to do. Heh XD


----------



## Entropic

Scoobyscoob said:


> I agree that any type can be dark but as a whole it's mostly the Ni types that are dark contrasted with Se types that tend to be more... on the light side. I think the Ne/Si quadras tend to not really be light or dark but to focus on neutrality and instead focus on good group atmosphere and pleasant sensations.
> 
> Yes, I agree there's a certain merriness to the movies which I believe comes from Beta moreso than Alpha. Alpha in terms of value would be not really be into dark themes but would be more into merriment and festivities. Honestly, the darkest I think Ne/Si types could get would be to throw a Halloween costume party but with lots of music, food, conversation and some light hearted scaring. XD
> 
> But yeah, I think Tim Burton being ESI makes the most sense. Claymation is way too labor intensive for non Se valuing quadras to want to partake in, especially when easier alternatives existed at the time already. With Tim Burton movies there tends to be a theme of finding the right person to love which is very Fi in nature and overall very Gamma in nature as well. We're very couple oriented as a quadra, IMO.


I think he's a delta NF. I have a hard time seeing how something like a movie such as The Nightmare Before Christmas is anything but a delta NF kind of story. Jack is an IEE for sure. I've seen a lot of Burton's works and while he may occasionally dabble with horror-esque themes, he always does it in a cartoon-ish way. Take Vincent, for example:






It doesn't deal with Ni as a theme, but it deals with how Vincent experiences himself to have certain potential he can't live up to.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Entropic said:


> I think he's a delta NF. I have a hard time seeing how something like a movie such as The Nightmare Before Christmas is anything but a delta NF kind of story. Jack is an IEE for sure. I've seen a lot of Burton's works and while he may occasionally dabble with horror-esque themes, he always does it in a cartoon-ish way. Take Vincent, for example:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't deal with Ni as a theme, but it deals with how Vincent experiences himself to have certain potential he can't live up to.


Although I enjoyed that video very much as I do with most of Tim Burton's shorts, I don't know how you could possibly see Delta NF in that video. I could see a Delta NF maybe appreciating the artistic qualities it, but to me, it was screaming Ni or perhaps an ESI's kind of whimsical take on Ni, displaying a tormented soul who is tormented only in his mind while his family sometimes brings him back to reality only for him to slip back into his life of despair. :laughing: The Nightmare Before Christmas has some Beta themes IMO, but Jack Skellington himself is a bit of an ambiguous character overall. To me, he seems like he can be more of any Beta or Gamma extrovert who is popular and well liked in his community. With Sally(?) being the shy but pretty love interest who secretly pursues the charismatic male protagonist. Tim Burton himself, I'm confident he is ESI with a lot of ILI mentorship early during his artistic career, IMO!


----------



## Entropic

Scoobyscoob said:


> Although I enjoyed that video very much as I do with most of Tim Burton's shorts, I don't know how you could possibly see Delta NF in that video. I could see a Delta NF maybe appreciating the artistic qualities it, but to me, it was screaming Ni or perhaps an ESI's kind of whimsical take on Ni,


Exactly what is Ni about this video? 



> displaying a tormented soul who is tormented only in his mind while his family sometimes brings him back to reality only for him to slip back into his life of despair. :laughing:


And how is this Ni, again?



> The Nightmare Before Christmas has some Beta themes IMO, but Jack Skellington himself is a bit of an ambiguous character overall.


How is he ambiguous? He has a song called What's This:



> What's this? What's this?
> There's color everywhere
> What's this?
> There's white things in the air
> What's this?
> I can't believe my eyes
> I must be dreaming
> Wake up, Jack, this isn't fair
> What's this?
> What's this? What's this?
> There's something very wrong
> What's this?
> There are people singing songs
> What's this?
> The streets are lined with
> Little creatures laughing
> Everybody seems so happy
> Have I possibly gone daffy?
> What is this?
> What's this?
> There are children throwing snowballs
> instead of throwing heads
> They're busy building toys
> And absolutely no one's dead
> There's frost on every window
> I can't believe my eyes
> And in my bones I feel a warmth
> That's coming from inside
> Oh, look
> What's this?
> They're hanging mistletoe, they kiss?
> Why that looks so unique, inspired
> They're gathering around to hear a story
> Roasting chestnuts on a fire
> What's this?
> What's this?
> In here they've got a little tree, how queer
> And who would ever think
> And why?
> They're covering it with tiny little things
> They've got electric lights on strings
> And there's a smile on everyone
> So, now, correct me if I'm wrong
> This looks like fun
> This looks like fun
> Oh, could it be I got my wish?
> What's this?
> Oh my, what now?
> The children are asleep
> But look, there's nothing underneath
> No ghouls, no witches here to scream and
> scare them
> Or ensnare them, only little cozy things
> Secure inside their dreamland... *sigh*
> What's this?
> The monsters are all missing
> And the nightmares can't be found
> And in their place there seems to be
> Good feeling all around
> Instead of screams, I swear
> I can hear music in the air
> The smell of cakes and pies
> Are absolutely everywhere
> The sights, the sounds
> They're everywhere and all around
> I've never felt so good before
> This empty place inside of me is filling up
> I simply cannot get enough
> I want it, oh, I want it
> Oh, I want it for my own
> I've got to know
> I've got to know
> What is this place that I have found?
> What is this?
> Christmas Town, hmm...


This song is extremely Ne, being interested in understanding the potentials around him and how what it means is exciting. There's also a bit of Si e.g. "bones feeling warmth".



> To me, he seems like he can be more of any Beta or Gamma extrovert who is popular and well liked in his community. With Sally(?) being the shy but pretty love interest who secretly pursues the charismatic male protagonist. Tim Burton himself, I'm confident he is ESI with a lot of ILI mentorship early during his artistic career, IMO!


I have a hard time seeing Jack as a gamma or a beta extrovert. Where is his use of force? The only other possible type I could see for him is EIE which would be the quasi for IEE, but I think IEE is far more likely seeing how he seems to value Fi. Sally struck me as a delta ST from what I remember of the movie, but I haven't seen it in many years. 

As for Burton and his social circle, I wouldn't know, except I know he's good friends with Johnny Depp and Marilyn Manson. Manson is an ILI, but Depp is probably an EIE.

Compare Vincent to this video, btw, where Ni is a very clear and prevalent theme:


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Entropic said:


> Exactly what is Ni about this video?
> 
> And how is this Ni, again?


I'll quote if I have to but I would suggest you look up the definition of introverted intuition in the first spot from either Socionics sources or from Jung himself. Ni is defined as angst and self-brooding, with a chaotic sense of coming and fleeting thoughts and perceptions.



> How is he ambiguous? He has a song called What's This:
> 
> This song is extremely Ne, being interested in understanding the potentials around him and how what it means is exciting. There's also a bit of Si e.g. "bones feeling warmth".


If you're going to analyze a movie with music, it's a good idea to either look at the character development or the music separately. Writers frequently are not similar to song writers at all. Although I will say that song in itself sounds very Si/Ne. Since I think of the movie as being Beta but mostly Gamma to begin with, I'd say it's a nice progression to Delta from the Beta and Gamma monsters inhabiting the village.



> I have a hard time seeing Jack as a gamma or a beta extrovert. Where is his use of force? The only other possible type I could see for him is EIE which would be the quasi for IEE, but I think IEE is far more likely seeing how he seems to value Fi. Sally struck me as a delta ST from what I remember of the movie, but I haven't seen it in many years.


I was originally going to say Jack is likely an undifferentiated LIE and EIE but when I thought back to his character, I'd say he's undifferentiated enough to also include SEE and SLE too. He's essentially the popular and charismatic but lonely guy. That's a painfully Gamma caricature. You'll see that theme in probably every Gamma love story ever told.



> As for Burton and his social circle, I wouldn't know, except I know he's good friends with Johnny Depp and Marilyn Manson. Manson is an ILI, but Depp is probably an EIE.


Hm, I never thought of Johnny Depp being EIE but thinking back to his role as Jack Sparrow that makes a lot of sense. He makes use of his expressiveness expertly. I believe that would still point to Tim Burton being Se/Ni valuing. I'm basing ESI on Tim Burton mainly due to all of his original works tend to be a love story. Not about power and glory as would be befitting of Beta but of love and companionship as is typical of Gamma SF. Yep, most of his stories, when you pare away the dark themes, the music, the eccentric characters are simple little love stories; and I honestly can't think of a better type to type him as other than ESI.



> Compare Vincent to this video, btw, where Ni is a very clear and prevalent theme:


Yes, that makes it very clear of the Ni overtones, from the creation of a partner to creating his greatest work to pass off to the being of his creation only to be lost to his own devotion with the cycle to continue anew. Pretty good video except for the ending. I get the impression that this Vincent fellow didn't know how to end the video so he ended it on a cyclic note. Which always seems like a sham of an ending to me. Is Vincent an ILI? Because that's the immediate impression I had of the video but I can see a case for IEI as well.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Gotta say, that song you shared the lyrics of seems more SeSiNeFi to me. Like, ESI or SEE fits that IMO. It's got Ne, sure, but its mostly about his sensations that he gets in response to the things observed, and to his desire for more. It isn't about the potential, it is merely set in a place that has a lot of potential to be talked about. Then it rounds up in the end and goes on to seeking a deeper meaning, with an ever so slight dip into Ni. Plus, the Ne seems to be overwhelming him, which strikes me as low Ne.


----------



## Entropic

Scoobyscoob said:


> I'll quote if I have to but I would suggest you look up the definition of introverted intuition in the first spot from either Socionics sources or from Jung himself. Ni is defined as angst and self-brooding, with a chaotic sense of coming and fleeting thoughts and perceptions.


Except not really:



> *All processes take place in time; they have their roots in the past and their continuation in the future.* Time is the correlation between events that follow each other. *This perceptual element provides information about the sequence of events and people's deeds, about their cause and effect relationship,* and about participants' attitudes towards this — that is, about people's feelings that these relationships engender.
> Such an individual perceives information from without as feelings about the future, past, and present. For example, a sense of hurriedness, calmness, or heatedness, a sense of timeliness or prematureness, a sense of proper or improper life rhythm, a sense of impending danger or safety, anticipation, fear of being late, a sense of seeing the future, anxiety about what lies ahead, and so forth. At any given moment of one's life one has such a sense of time. One cannot live outside of time or be indifferent toward it. Thus, a certain sense of time is an integral part of the individual's psychological state at any given moment. *This perceptual element defines a person's ability or inability to forecast and plan for the future, evade all sorts of troubles, avoid taking wrong actions, and learn from past experience.*
> *When this element is in the leading position, the individual possesses innate strategic abilities and is able to choose the most optimal moments for different activities*: when to give battle, if necessary, and when to avoid battle, when that would be more appropriate. Interaction in time might be interpreted as the ability to avoid collisions with objects and hence avoid objects' reflection within oneself.


[QUOTE*]Ni is generally associated with the ability to recognize the unfolding of processes over time (how one event leads to another), have visions of the past and future, develop mental imagery, and see intangible hints of relationships between processes or objects.*
Types that value Ni always like to have in mind a specific plan for how their life will develop in the future. Thus they have little time for the concept of "living for the moment" or "making the best of the present". They generally engage in pure leisure activities only for short periods of time, and even then their leisure activities generally involve a psychologically demanding or competitive aspect.[/QUOTE]

First definition is Augusta's, the second definition is the generic one found on wikisocion. None of them mention the qualities you mention because they are indeed irrelevant to Ni. 



> If you're going to analyze a movie with music, it's a good idea to either look at the character development or the music separately. Writers frequently are not similar to song writers at all. Although I will say that song in itself sounds very Si/Ne. Since I think of the movie as being Beta but mostly Gamma to begin with, I'd say it's a nice progression to Delta from the Beta and Gamma monsters inhabiting the village.


That argument makes absolutely no sense; how exactly is the world a progression of quadra values? The character development of Jack is pretty much one where he thinks the gloomy nature of the Halloween world is not right for him. He's seeking novelty and brightness which is what drew him to the Christmas world. Part of the reason why he dislikes the Halloween world has to do with the attitude of the people in it; they aren't overly caring for one another and for people around them in general. Overall, I'd say the commentary that's being made is delta quadra criticizing beta quadra. The Halloween world represents the quadra values of beta (rough, direct, open emotional expression etc.) and it's the best represented by the Oogie Boogie Man. The Oogie Boogie Man is a very clear Se ego; direct, forceful and grabby and the values he represents are those of roughness. The world is a cruel and harsh place to be in, with no much space for ideological exploration. In many ways the Oogie Boogie Man is akin to Game of Thrones, a good example of an Se-Ni universe:






If you want an example of gamma characters, I think the gang of Halloween children that worked for Oogie Boogie are much better examples of Se and gamma. 



> I was originally going to say Jack is likely an undifferentiated LIE and EIE but when I thought back to his character, I'd say he's undifferentiated enough to also include SEE and SLE too. He's essentially the popular and charismatic but lonely guy. That's a painfully Gamma caricature. You'll see that theme in probably every Gamma love story ever told.


In socionics there's no such concept as being type-differentiated; that's a purely Jungian concept that Augusta did not carry over to socionics. In socionics you are one type and one type only, and while you can use and express all IEs, you will ultimately prefer a certain set over that of others'. Being an LIE that's also simultaneously an EIE, SLE and SEE is simply not possible. You have one base function and that function can only be occupied by one IE. 

In Jack's case, it is undeniably Ne: the focus on novelty and potential in objects. This is what drew him to the Christmas world in the first place, being so enthralled by the potential it held and how he could use its inspiration in order to change the Halloween world. As is also typical of delta NFs and Fi egos in general, he did not consider the full implications of his actions. What definitely sets him apart from any Se ego here, is how he did not attempt to gauge reality as it is in the present moment. He did not compare and contrast the stark differences between the Christmas world and the Halloween world and he did not consider that because of this difference, even though it may potentially be a very nice idea to have the Halloween world copy the Christmas world, the real-world effect will be the very opposite of what he sought to accomplish. 

Jack's failure was a direct result of his lead function, being more focused on the idea of an object rather than looking at the object as its own concrete entity. Furthermore, it alienated him from the one person he actually cared about the most: Sally. As a delta ST, she eventually helped to ground Jack back to reality and assure him that he is ultimately the most comfortable and fits in the best in the Halloween world; he doesn't have to change or prove himself a nice person in order to be liked. 

The most gamma movie Tim Burton has ever done is Sweeney Todd imo, which is probably because it was a gamma that wrote the script: John Logan. John Logan wrote and directed Penny Dreadful which is a very gamma TV series. Compare Penny Dreadful, that in many ways takes the same Gothic inspiration that Burton does in his works, to Burton's works:






Notice the difference in tone. There is always an air of whimsicality to Burton's works, even to Sweeney Todd despite being one of his most mature movies, which you don't see being present in Penny Dreadful:








> Hm, I never thought of Johnny Depp being EIE but thinking back to his role as Jack Sparrow that makes a lot of sense. He makes use of his expressiveness expertly. I believe that would still point to Tim Burton being Se/Ni valuing.


Of course Burton can be friends with a beta as a delta. 



> I'm basing ESI on Tim Burton mainly due to all of his original works tend to be a love story.


Fe types can write love stories too. 



> Not about power and glory as would be befitting of Beta but of love and companionship as is typical of Gamma SF.


Actually, what you describe fits delta so much better:

After the critical work of the third quadra the way is cleared to enter the arena for the last in the cycle fourth quadra or "delta". Its perception of the world is harsh and realistic. It best relates to the element of earth. This quadra consists of the following sociotypes: LSE, EII, SLI, IEE. *Earth is the most conservative but at the same time the most fertile element. In general such is the atmosphere of the quadra which unites realists who value stability and proven traditions above all else.* Among them differs Huxley who is able to get involved in the unusual but even he in general is oriented towards the other side of the common in search of sensations. 



> Thirdly the fouth quada is oriented towards the aspect of +Te() which implies the logic of the use and management of the resources. This is the most cost-conscious quadra which is able to efficiently consume and prefers high quality and sturdy products. *For sociotypes of this quadra risk, rush, economic chaos and fraud are unusual. *Society of qualitative consumption can only be stable.


Also, for clarity with regards to Jack's character, where I would say the below passage describes him very well:



> And the fourth value of the quadra is -Ne() aspect meaning the alternative, unusual and sensational. Despite their grounded nature sociotypes of this quadra respect unusual and talented people who offer alternatives. In any case obstacles for the spread of new information no matter how avant-garde is not valued. Therefore in the community located on the fourth quadra stage periodically break out some sensations, outbreaks of interest towards original people and what they preach, alternative ideas for development are pushed forward.





> Yep, most of his stories, when you pare away the dark themes, the music, *the eccentric characters* are simple little love stories; and I honestly can't think of a better type to type him as other than ESI.


But "darkness" is not explicit or unique to gamma. Every quadra understands darkness in its own way and Burton's style of darkness is definitely on the Ne end of things. Compare to the video I posted called The Maker. It seems to be a story aimed at children, also, so in terms of demographics it generally fits the same demographic Burton tends to aim at, and in many ways the video is stylistically similar to Burton's works. Yet the content of the story and the way the story is told is very different; I don't consider Burton's stories genuinely dark in the same way The Maker is dark. 

We can even compare to an opening such as True Detective, that I also consider to be a great example of a gamma series:






Notice the difference in style of imagery and how it's presented and put together. You would never see Burton do something like that video. We could also compare to something more on the Se as opposed to Ni end (the Dexter OP is also a pretty good example of demonstrative Si, I think, @Fried Eggz):









> Yes, that makes it very clear of the Ni overtones, from the creation of a partner to creating his greatest work to pass off to the being of his creation only to be lost to his own devotion with the cycle to continue anew. Pretty good video except for the ending. I get the impression that this Vincent fellow didn't know how to end the video so he ended it on a cyclic note. Which always seems like a sham of an ending to me. Is Vincent an ILI? Because that's the immediate impression I had of the video but I can see a case for IEI as well.


I don't think you can type Vincent since we don't know how he thinks and reasons. He seems like an EII, though, to me.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Entropic said:


> Ne PoLR is definitely one of the more frustrating to deal with I think.


Honestly, the internet has skewed peoples' perception of normal interactions. I find ESIs to be completely forgettable and easily overlooked online. It becomes only marginally better in person, depending on how attractive the person is. Although personality and pleasant mannerisms and body language go a long way. All of which is lost online.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Bump. :bwink:


----------



## Scoobyscoob

@Entropic FAT and his cronies think you're an ESI. Just thought you should be aware of such opinions. :laughing:


----------



## piano

Scoobyscoob said:


> Honestly, the internet has skewed peoples' perception of normal interactions. I find ESIs to be completely forgettable and easily overlooked online. It becomes only marginally better in person, depending on how attractive the person is. Although personality and pleasant mannerisms and body language go a long way. All of which is lost online.


you think so? i can't recall a single time i've been described as forgettable or easily overlooked. i mean, sure, i've felt that way sometimes, but i don't think feeling invisible or unheard is uncommon. it only seems to happen when i enter a new environment with the sole intention of flying under the radar, otherwise i'm fairly skilled at making a memorable first impression. it's not always good, mind you, but i try to leave a mark. now, how long that mark lasts before being swept away by the sands of time is another story entirely. i'd akin it to a sketch in the sand... so, not very memorable at all, actually. i'm pretty good about weaving my way in and out of people's lives without being detected, though, and i think that's what you're referring to here because, 9 times out of 10, that'll be the path i choose.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

ok not what i meant said:


> you think so? i can't recall a single time i've been described as forgettable or easily overlooked. i mean, sure, i've felt that way sometimes, but i don't think feeling invisible or unheard is uncommon. it only seems to happen when i enter a new environment with the sole intention of flying under the radar, otherwise i'm fairly skilled at making a memorable first impression. it's not always good, mind you, but i try to leave a mark. now, how long that mark lasts before being swept away by the sands of time is another story entirely. i'd akin it to a sketch in the sand... so, not very memorable at all, actually. i'm pretty good about weaving my way in and out of people's lives without being detected, though, and i think that's what you're referring to here because, 9 times out of 10, that'll be the path i choose.


Hm, please allow me to explain, I meant in instances like this here in an impersonal forum setting where I don't know what anyone looks like, I don't know what peoples' voice sound like and I don't know the body language. When I'm on forums, I typically don't look through peoples' photo albums nor do I care to really get into anyone's personal life and read blogs. What I do readily know is that ESI women tend to be very attractive to outright gorgeous and the guys are usually pretty manly, so I keep that in the back of my head when interacting with an ESI online. For me, even if you left a memory in the sand, I'd have a snapshot of it in my memory so you would not be forgotten. I guess the initial grabbing of my attention is the hard part because once you have my attention I'll essentially never ignore you from then on. Unless for some reason I lost interest, which rarely if ever happens if you're interesting enough to grab peoples' attention online.

Yes, what you said is definitely an aspect to the ESI online. You do weave in and out of contact on the internet, but are much more consistent in person, yes, very true. I believe my wife is an ESI-Se and she does this A LOT. Some times it annoys everyone in the family but we've just accepted that it's in your nature.


----------



## Entropic

Scoobyscoob said:


> @Entropic FAT and his cronies think you're an ESI. Just thought you should be aware of such opinions. :laughing:


I am already well aware of people's opinions.


----------



## piano

Scoobyscoob said:


> Hm, please allow me to explain, I meant in instances like this here in an impersonal forum setting where I don't know what anyone looks like, I don't know what peoples' voice sound like and I don't know the body language. When I'm on forums, I typically don't look through peoples' photo albums nor do I care to really get into anyone's personal life and read blogs. What I do readily know is that ESI women tend to be very attractive to outright gorgeous and the guys are usually pretty manly, so I keep that in the back of my head when interacting with an ESI online. For me, even if you left a memory in the sand, I'd have a snapshot of it in my memory so you would not be forgotten. I guess the initial grabbing of my attention is the hard part because once you have my attention I'll essentially never ignore you from then on. Unless for some reason I lost interest, which rarely if ever happens if you're interesting enough to grab peoples' attention online.
> 
> Yes, what you said is definitely an aspect to the ESI online. You do weave in and out of contact on the internet, but are much more consistent in person, yes, very true. I believe my wife is an ESI-Se and she does this A LOT. Some times it annoys everyone in the family but we've just accepted that it's in your nature.


interesteeng.  for me, personally, i'd actually argue that i'm far easier to catch on the internet than in the real world. i have a tendency to show up to a social event, say my his, heys, and hellos, and then sneak out the back without saying a word. then i'll hibernate for a couple of weeks before making another appearance, and i'll probably repeat this process until the end of time because it's what works best for me. i'm a homebody by nature so if you can't find me at work or in a library then chances are i'm in or around my house, most likely on my computer (hence the strong forum presence) or messing around on my phone. of course that's not all i do, but it's rare that i ever disconnect myself from technology completely.

is this how you'd describe ESIs online, just in reverse? are words not enough to pique your interest? online identities are generally contrived in a very compensatory manner, but i still think there's a lot to be learned about a person by how they choose to present themselves and express their thoughts on social media platforms, interactive forums like perC included.

physical appearance, demeanor, and tone of voice aside, how does a person typically grab your attention?


----------



## Scoobyscoob

ok not what i meant said:


> interesteeng.  for me, personally, i'd actually argue that i'm far easier to catch on the internet than in the real world. i have a tendency to show up to a social event, say my his, heys, and hellos, and then sneak out the back without saying a word. then i'll hibernate for a couple of weeks before making another appearance, and i'll probably repeat this process until the end of time because it's what works best for me. i'm a homebody by nature so if you can't find me at work or in a library then chances are i'm in or around my house, most likely on my computer (hence the strong forum presence) or messing around on my phone. of course that's not all i do, but it's rare that i ever disconnect myself from technology completely.
> 
> is this how you'd describe ESIs online, just in reverse? are words not enough to pique your interest? online identities are generally contrived in a very compensatory manner, but i still think there's a lot to be learned about a person by how they choose to present themselves and express their thoughts on social media platforms, interactive forums like perC included.
> 
> physical appearance, demeanor, and tone of voice aside, how does a person typically grab your attention?


Hahah yeah, my wife! :kitteh: She's a homebody by nature and she's really into all things technology. When she goes out with friends or is invited to a party, she leaves and comes back within an hour or two. I think that's the cutest behavior ever. 

Well, I spend most of my time reading words and thoughts of people so I suppose it would be difficult for most ESI to pique my interest with what they say. Almost universally ESI grab my attention by being aesthetically pleasing in some way. I think my wife is brilliant in her own way but if I'm being honest, her beauty, gracefulness and soft nature is what caught my attention in the first place. That's what brought me to want to get to know her better and find the intellect that she also has. 

Those three you listed are pretty much how someone grabs my attention. Also, if you know me and can give little inside facts of our relationship, then that'll attract me straight to you every time.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Reading the latests posts confirms why I don't bother typing anyone that I don't know well. It's too easy to focus on a narrow fragment and miss the point without all the right information and sometimes I can't avoid to shake my head when I see some typing options that make no sense to me considering what I understand about Socionics.


----------



## vandieu

Something interesting I discovered: Both the film vampire Nosferatu and the actor who first played him, Max Schreck, were ILIs.

"One of Schreck's contemporaries recalled that he was a loner with an unusual sense of humor and skill in playing grotesque characters. He also reported that he lived in "a remote and incorporeal world" and that he often spent time walking through forests."


----------



## Entropic

vandieu said:


> Something interesting I discovered: Both the film vampire Nosferatu and the actor who first played him, Max Schreck, were ILIs.
> 
> "One of Schreck's contemporaries recalled that he was a loner with an unusual sense of humor and skill in playing grotesque characters. He also reported that he lived in "a remote and incorporeal world" and that he often spent time walking through forests."
> 
> View attachment 586986
> 
> 
> View attachment 587002


How does the quote you provided support that he was an ILI? If anything, what is quoted probably says more about his enneagram than his cognition.

Anyway, just finished watching the movie Self/less. It was surprisingly good, like I didn't expect it at all. I also think it was a bit different from other action thrillers because it placed really strong emphasis on the relationships between the characters, whereas I otherwise think action thrillers often tend to be just that, action, and then there's a plot justifying the action. It wasn't perfect by any means, but I think it's well worth the watch. Got quite touchy-feely towards the end in a very nice way.

Also, I haven't looked deeper into it, but I really think Ryan Reynolds could be an SEE in person as well. I haven't seen him in any other role than Deadpool, but even in this movie you could kind of sense how the core aspect of his personality that was present in Deadpool was shining through and that core aspect is SEE imo. Probably why he ended up picking this movie because it strongly emphasizes Fi, like I said. 

Also a very different kind of movie from Tarsem Singh's over movies that otherwise tend to be cinematographic orgies with lots of vibrancy and coloring. No Bollywood ending in this one, at least, lol. I was surprised by that too, but it was a good movie and I thought it was well put overall. Some characterization was on the weaker side, but otherwise it was fine. Solid action thriller, anyway.


----------



## Dora

liminalthought said:


> Great idea, but I feel like there might not be enough socionics fans here to form a complete quadra. Sensors are quite scarce online.
> 
> ILI - _check_
> LIE - they're here, somewhere
> ESI - there is a fair amount here, though many unfamiliar with socionics
> SEE - scarce. socionics familiar? almost non-existant


Sooo, I'm rather unfamiliar with socionics, but I'm here, you can check off your token SEE:wink: I'm sure there are plenty in the 101 pages on this thread, but I only checked the first and last:blushed: It's not much better with the ESFP forum on MBTI. I usually get online while I'm getting distracted from work, because I'm out and about in my free time:blushed: I guess others are more disciplined workers or do what they actually enjoy and don't get distracted.

For illustration, here, have a piece of my test results. The SEE description fits:wink:









I don't know how this thread works, whether people actually react to each other, or just post their own stuff, but feel free to ask me anything, or educate me in any way you deem convenient. I'm a bit on the pragmatic side, so the probability is that if it's too abstract I won't focus enough. That's probably my biggest sin - attention span of a fruit fly.


----------



## Max

Someone said that I was an SEE. Someone else swears I am EIE. Others have said SLE. One thing for sure, I know I'm hard to pin down, like the moon bear I am 

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


----------



## Dora

WontlyTheMoonBear said:


> Someone said that I was an SEE. Someone else swears I am EIE. Others have said SLE. One thing for sure, I know I'm hard to pin down, like the moon bear I am
> 
> Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


If you describe yourself as hard to pin down and it's a sense of pride to you, rather than concern, then you are an ENFP:tongue: Which is I don't know what in Socionics:laughing: IEE I think. @talon235 recommended me this test, and I think it's pretty darn good: Keys 2 Cognition - Cognitive Processes


----------



## Vermillion

Dora said:


> If you describe yourself as hard to pin down and it's a sense of pride to you, rather than concern, then you are an ENFP:tongue: Which is I don't know what in Socionics:laughing: IEE I think. @*talon235* recommended me this test, and I think it's pretty darn good: Keys 2 Cognition - Cognitive Processes


That test does not hold for Socionics, because the information element descriptions are very different. Actually, typing by tests is a pretty unfavorable idea in general, since there is no test right now that is able to accurately assess the nuances in someone's preferences and communication and how they apply to IEs.


----------



## Max

Dora said:


> If you describe yourself as hard to pin down and it's a sense of pride to you, rather than concern, then you are an ENFP:tongue: Which is I don't know what in Socionics:laughing: IEE I think. @talon235 recommended me this test, and I think it's pretty darn good: Keys 2 Cognition - Cognitive Processes


Those tests are crap, no offense. Once I was an ENFJ, ESTP, ISTP, ESFP etc. It's not very consistent is it? It goes by moods, I think. Not a very good indicator for me, imo.



Night Huntress said:


> That test does not hold for Socionics, because the information element descriptions are very different. Actually, typing by tests is a pretty unfavorable idea in general, since there is no test right now that is able to accurately assess the nuances in someone's preferences and communication and how they apply to IEs.


I tried a Socionics test once, but like you said, it's very unfavorable. And not very accurate.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk


----------



## Parade of Sparrows

How do we hang out in threads? What do we do here. @Dora is cute no? How do I go about capturing an ILI now that I have her number. So many questions.

although most likely I'll start by pushing her to come out to more of the events that she happened to show up at last night when I got her number.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Yeah tests are crap. Don't rely on them @Dora . Although the one on sociotype seems okay: Tests

You can also try this flowchart as it's likely to be much quicker and likely more accurate: Detecting Socionic Types


----------



## SheWolf

Scoobyscoob said:


> Yeah tests are crap. Don't rely on them @*Dora* . Although the one on sociotype seems okay: Tests
> 
> You can also try this flowchart as it's likely to be much quicker and likely more accurate: Detecting Socionic Types


That flow chart isn't the _most_ horrible thing I've seen. Following it myself, I got ESFp/SEE. Though, it was kinda between that and ISFp/SEI.

Eh. Regardless, I've come to realize I'm pretty comfortable with Sensing. Sensing is just badass.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Thorn said:


> That flow chart isn't the _most_ horrible thing I've seen. Following it myself, I got ESFp/SEE. Though, it was kinda between that and ISFp/SEI.
> 
> Eh. Regardless, I've come to realize I'm pretty comfortable with Sensing. Sensing is just badass.


Yeah, the flowchart does resort to stereotypes a bit but glad you got your correct result. 

That's good. There's nothing wrong with sensing except by a few angry people on the internet.


----------



## Figure

talon235 said:


> How do we hang out in threads? What do we do here. @*Dora* is cute no? How do I go about capturing an ILI now that I have her number. So many questions.
> 
> although most likely I'll start by pushing her to come out to more of the events that she happened to show up at last night when I got her number.


That _may_ work, but it's probably better used as a way of starting more personal conversations rather than purely getting her to come out more. I could easily see that going down the path of, try to get her to go out, and in so doing randomly strike up some other conversation at the same time that ends up allowing you two to share views on things. 

That latter bit is more what you need with ILI's as we aren't exactly wild about, or consistent in going out to events (especially the Ni subtype). 

Don't be surprised if she acts like a complete bitch to you either. The same goes for SEE girls looking for ILI guys, our type just in general finds it hysterical when someone isn't thrown off by how ridiculously rude and arrogant we come across XD


----------



## Dora

Figure said:


> That _may_ work, but it's probably better used as a way of starting more personal conversations rather than purely getting her to come out more. I could easily see that going down the path of, try to get her to go out, and in so doing randomly strike up some other conversation at the same time that ends up allowing you two to share views on things.
> 
> That latter bit is more what you need with ILI's as we aren't exactly wild about, or consistent in going out to events (especially the Ni subtype).
> 
> Don't be surprised if she acts like a complete bitch to you either. The same goes for SEE girls looking for ILI guys, our type just in general finds it hysterical when someone isn't thrown off by how ridiculously rude and arrogant we come across XD


Are you the type to be secretly laughing on the inside, not caring to share the joke, while keeping a perfectly deadpan face?


----------



## Figure

Dora said:


> Are you the type to be secretly laughing on the inside, not caring to share the joke, while keeping a perfectly deadpan face?


Not really. If I'm laughing at someone or something it's usually pretty obvious XD 

The Ni subtype is the one that secretly mocks how stupid you appear to them. I'm a bit more open and just say it.


----------



## Parade of Sparrows

Figure said:


> That _may_ work, but it's probably better used as a way of starting more personal conversations rather than purely getting her to come out more. I could easily see that going down the path of, try to get her to go out, and in so doing randomly strike up some other conversation at the same time that ends up allowing you two to share views on things.
> 
> That latter bit is more what you need with ILI's as we aren't exactly wild about, or consistent in going out to events (especially the Ni subtype).
> 
> Don't be surprised if she acts like a complete bitch to you either. The same goes for SEE girls looking for ILI guys, our type just in general finds it hysterical when someone isn't thrown off by how ridiculously rude and arrogant we come across XD


Yeah luckily my goal isn't to get her to go out just for the sake of it. I also hate being obligated to go out to things I don't care about and funny enough she did end up resisting me asking her anyways. The end goal is to be able to talk more candidly with her to get to know her better. I don't personally like to text a love interest a lot because I find that in person engagement of conversation comes more naturally to me. 

Hmm interesting thing on the "being a bitch part" most of the guys in our mutual social group have mentioned what they call "bitchy" behavior oh her part but it doesn't register as that to me. Behavior doesn't become bitchy to me until it leads to outright hurtful and false accusations of someones character based on assumptions with the inability or refusal to engage in discussion on how to come to a point of mutual understanding.

Plus if being arrogant and rude counts as bitchy, then I guess what I'm saying is, bitches are hot. 

In the end, while she didn't show up at our Thursday night gatherings, we did end up going out to coffee and then to a bookstore the day after.


----------



## SheWolf

Figure said:


> T
> Don't be surprised if she acts like a complete bitch to you either. The same goes for SEE girls looking for ILI guys, our type just in general finds it hysterical when someone isn't thrown off by how ridiculously rude and arrogant we come across XD


Huh. I've never gotten "ridiculously rude" from any ILI I've talked to. I've actually never felt uncomfortable around them like I have LSI's who are extremely harsh in voicing their nitpicking. LOL

Arrogance, sure, but it's more like... condescending stares and this air of "You're incorrect and I'm not wasting my time with you." Now THAT I have gotten from ILI's and it irritates me. I argue with Ti/Fe types. I don't argue with ILI's. They have no time for my dramatic self. Lol.

Something I notice with ILI's is their tendency to complain, be a pessimist, brooding, and be a bit critical (hence where I'm sure the term "the critic" comes from)

Usually I totally relate to why their complaining and go along with it but at the end of the day it's a bit much. When I complain about things, it's either in the form of a joke or making a more exaggerated fuss to get someone to solve my problem for me. It's indirect. When I do this, it kinda just flies over the ILI's head. They don't react one way or another, which leaves me a bit disappointed. But otherwise, I actually have good discussions with ILI's.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Don't mind me buuuut... back to being an LIE. I'm not being flippant, I swear.


----------



## Parade of Sparrows

You won't trick us again. I SEE all.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Go take your imaginary villains elsewhere. :wink:


----------



## Parade of Sparrows

I SEE right through your LIEs. Don't play games with me. 

Also upon further inspection it seems possible my lady target could be an SLI. Still arrogant, still hot!


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Wow, you're creepy and predatory. I'm sure your "lady-target" will reject you and you'll fail. :wink: Stay away from my daughter too. :bwink:


----------



## Parade of Sparrows

Wait... Is your daughter a) over 26 b) cute? c) have a job d) interested in doctor who, Harry Potter, or HIMYM and e) highly arrogant and into feminsm and bdsm? Otherwise I'm not interested no matter how much you tempt me.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

No, she just doesn't like losers like you @talon235 .


----------



## Parade of Sparrows

Scoobyscoob said:


> No, she just doesn't like losers like you @talon235 .


I'm sorry to have offended you. I was just joking around. Not much else to do but hang out on the forum when when in the hospital. my judgement has been off.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

You never offended me, I was just thinking about how much of a loser attempted-boy-friend you are.


----------



## Parade of Sparrows

I know right? It's simply astonishing what women will put up with.


----------



## sinaasappel

:ninja:


----------



## Scarlet Eyes

Brainstorming is hard for a self-proclaimed one-track mind.

At this point, I just want to veg out with some juice and Hannibal episodes.


----------



## Vermillion

Scarlet Eyes said:


> Brainstorming is hard for a self-proclaimed one-track mind.
> 
> At this point, I just want to veg out with some juice and Hannibal episodes.


What are you working on? I recommend creating mental maps on paper, they create more linear connections between ideas and work better for people unaccustomed to automatic brainstorming.

Additionally it *always *works better with a partner or several.


----------



## Scarlet Eyes

Night Huntress said:


> What are you working on? I recommend creating mental maps on paper, they create more linear connections between ideas and work better for people unaccustomed to automatic brainstorming.
> 
> Additionally it *always *works better with a partner or several.


Thinking up of some post ideas for a group blog.  Each member of the group has to submit at least 10 ideas by tomorrow. 

Ah yes, I forgot about mind maps. Those are a big help for me when I need to associate or brainstorm. I should utilize that more often. Thanks for the tips


----------



## Animal

I am learning more about socionics, so I am subscribing to see what y'all are like.


----------



## Scarlet Eyes

Animal said:


> I am learning more about socionics, so I am subscribing to see what y'all are like.


Hmm, I definitely think you have Fi and Te. But you're not INFP anymore? :shocked:


----------



## Animal

Scarlet Eyes said:


> Hmm, I definitely think you have Fi and Te. But you're not INFP anymore? :shocked:


I agree - I am 99% sure I'm Fi first.
I'm not as deeply schooled in socionics as some people here, but I have been looking into it for more than a year now, and I am pretty confident of that.

What I'm trying to determine is whether I'm ESI or EII. I had typed at IEE in the first place but it feels very off now. SEE is wrong for me too, but high Fi is a definite, so that leaves ESI and EII.


----------



## Scarlet Eyes

Animal said:


> I agree - I am 99% sure I'm Fi first.
> I'm not as deeply schooled in socionics as some people here, but I have been looking into it for more than a year now, and I am pretty confident of that.
> 
> What I'm trying to determine is whether I'm ESI or EII. I had typed at IEE in the first place but it feels very off now. SEE is wrong for me too, but high Fi is a definite, so that leaves ESI and EII.


I'm not as knowledgeable in Socionics as cognitive functions or Enneagram either. But talking to other people skilled in it has definitely made me learn more.  

If you haven't done so already, you can look through these webpages for EII and ESI:

Socionics - the16types.info - ESI - ISFj

Socionics - the16types.info - EII - INFj

Hope you find your type :star:


----------



## Animal

Scarlet Eyes said:


> I'm not as knowledgeable in Socionics as cognitive functions or Enneagram either. But talking to other people skilled in it has definitely made me learn more.
> 
> If you haven't done so already, you can look through these webpages for EII and ESI:
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - ESI - ISFj
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - EII - INFj
> 
> Hope you find your type :star:


Thank you!

Like most socionics descriptions - I related more to the ESI than the EII. But there are some problems. Both types are portrayed as 'quietly family oriented' and dressing down. 

I am a wilder dresser like the IEE descriptions, but it specifically says that they do this so that people won't take them too seriously, or won't take anything too seriously. I know IEE's like this, but it's not me... I dress to convey something serious to me. I am a vessel through which my passion emerges. My outfits are symbols of something deeper and emotional just like everything in my life. "Don't take things too seriously" is the opposite of how I think. Although I can definitely laugh at myself, my personality errs on the side of too many intense values , whether or not I say them aloud. My favorite way to say them is in my art, but I forced myself to learn to put things in words on perc,so I could become a better writer. 

For ESI in general - I am definitely focused on "one vision" of my life rather than possibilities. The possibilities come in when I'm pursuing a vision and need to find avenues to actualize it. But once I am going on that road, I don't dwell on 'other possible roads' until something goes wrong. I don't like to waste brain space on that; I'd rather get each step done. 

I am "sweet" irl but forceful when I am in charge of a vision or project. While I'm a 4 and can get stuck on someone I can't have for way too long.. and make him part of my hall of mirrors, my fantasy projects, my self-reflection etc... and my obsessive desire can take over my world.... I will still always try to make it happen in reality every single time. The minute my obsession has a girlfriend I lose interest, even if I resume it later. If I can't make it real as in 'be with him,' I will write books and music about it so that there's something concrete to do with my obsession. I am more of an 'artist' than a 'dreamer.'

Not sure how much that helps or if it's getting to the principles, just thinking aloud.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

@Animal the person who typed me EIE said you were IEI. I actually don't even remember if it was that person. I hear a lot of things and talk to a lot of people. But you got brought up and she said, "Oh Animal, she is IEI". lol. 

Actually I just asked her and she said IEI would be one of the last types you would be. lol. Somebody told me you were IEI tho. Wasn't her.

OrangeAppled is an example of a person who types INFP in MBTI and IEI in Socionics.


----------



## Entropic

With all due to respect to OrangeAppled, I don't think she quite understands how socionics works in order to sufficiently type herself within it. From what I read, she mostly seems to type as an IEI because she relates more to that description, not necessarily because it makes structural sense.

Given what I've seen of her, I have a hard time seeing her as Fe valuing in socionics, but since she doesn't really frequent this place it's a bit of a moot point either way.

The only time I can see people arriving at different type conclusions would be because they use a dichotomies-based approach when typing in the MBTI. That doesn't work with socionics, though.


----------



## SheWolf

The biggest thing I tell people is that if you're going to learn Socionics is that you need to leave MBTI stuff at the front door with the exception of extremely basic knowledge (Such as knowing that Se = Extraverted Sensing)

The IME's and MBTI cognitive functions do not really correlate. For example, I really think that MBTI Fi is really like 60% Socionics Fe. Some MBTI Si stuff (comparing past to present and future) could exchange over to Socionics Ni.

Or Te in MBTI (Strict rule-following and being a Manager from Hell) is basically just Beta Se/Ti. Lol
_____________________________________________
@*FearAndTrembling*
Who typed you? You can PM it if you wish.

I was typed EIE by someone who runs a blog and a couple Socionics groups. 
They determined pretty quickly that I was Fe valuing and likely Fe was in my ego. So, we started talking about my "relationship" to Se and Ni to determine Alpha SF or Beta NF. 

Also a fun thing they told me was "World rejecting" versus "World Accepting."

Se/Ni (Decisive) "rejects", Si/Ne (Judicious) "accepts."

This basically means that Se/Ni is discontented with the world and seeks to acquire more from it and bend the world to it's will. 



> Valuing :f: and :t: together creates a dissatisfaction in Decisive types with their present situation. While :f: demands the action to confront reality and make it suit one's ambitions, :t: provides a sense of purpose or preferred outcome to these confrontations. As such, these types pursue long-reaching outcomes and can reject the softer luxuries and distractions of mundane living. Instead they advocate tough dedication in seeing things to the end.


Whereas Si/Ne valuing appreciates the things the world could give them and indulges in it.



> Valuing :i: and :s: together creates a contentedness in Judicious types with their present situation. While :i: explores the many possibilities the world has to offer, :s: brings them together into our enjoyment of the present and the quality of life we are living now. As such, the actions of these types are centered around one's lifestyle and the appreciation of that lifestyle in a way that is both enriching and sustaining.


I am very discontent with what is already there. I tend to make competitions out of nothing, therefore disrupting the "harmony" of what is already there. It's a bad habit. Friends and family joke that I make _everything_ a competition. It's kinda odd for me to think the world isn't a place for competition for better gain.

To make it worse, the thought of losing makes me mad. Lol.


----------



## Animal

FearAndTrembling said:


> @*Animal* the person who typed me EIE said you were IEI. I actually don't even remember if it was that person. I hear a lot of things and talk to a lot of people. But you got brought up and she said, "Oh Animal, she is IEI". lol.
> 
> Actually I just asked her and she said IEI would be one of the last types you would be. lol. Somebody told me you were IEI tho. Wasn't her.
> 
> OrangeAppled is an example of a person who types INFP in MBTI and IEI in Socionics.


At this point I'm not sure if I'm INFP or ISFP in general. But yeah..

IEI is just wrong. My husband is that type and he is very eloquent about his process and breaking down the functions, so I understand that type more than some others and I can't see it in myself. At least that's where I stand now.. willing to learn or hear people out though.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Animal said:


> At this point I'm not sure if I'm INFP or ISFP in general. But yeah..
> 
> IEI is just wrong. My husband is that type and he is very eloquent about his process and breaking down the functions, so I understand that type more than some others and I can't see it in myself. At least that's where I stand now.. willing to learn or hear people out though.


You're eloquent too. Like how you broke down how I was a 7. You're both more eloquent than me. lol

But I agree that Sun is at least somewhat better at breaking down stuff like you said. In a more thinking/logical fashion.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Entropic said:


> With all due to respect to OrangeAppled, I don't think she quite understands how socionics works in order to sufficiently type herself within it. From what I read, she mostly seems to type as an IEI because she relates more to that description, not necessarily because it makes structural sense.
> 
> Given what I've seen of her, I have a hard time seeing her as Fe valuing in socionics, but since she doesn't really frequent this place it's a bit of a moot point either way.
> 
> The only time I can see people arriving at different type conclusions would be because they use a dichotomies-based approach when typing in the MBTI. That doesn't work with socionics, though.



This was the first drum that Jeremy beat loudly. First thing I remember him by. His insistence that Socionics botched Fi and Fe. lol. Honestly, when I answer questions honestly on most tests I come back EII. I'm not sure if that means anything but I am just saying how OrangeAppled and I both criss cross and manage to be opposed in any system. lol. She relates to the Fe of Socionics. And tests says I relate more to Fi.


----------



## SheWolf

FearAndTrembling said:


> This was the first drum that Jeremy beat loudly. First thing I remember him by. His insistence that Socionics botched Fi and Fe. lol. Honestly, when I answer questions honestly on most tests I come back EII. I'm not sure if that means anything but I am just saying how OrangeAppled and I both criss cross and manage to be opposed in any system. lol. She relates to the Fe of Socionics. And tests says I relate more to Fi.


I either get Gamma SF or Beta NF on tests. Not totally off but... not conclusive by any means.

Give me 10 MBTI tests and I assure you each one will come back different. 

When I'm in a bad mood and take MBTI tests I come back ISTP or INTJ. Lul.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Thorn said:


> I either get Gamma SF or Beta NF on tests. Not totally off but... not conclusive by any means.
> 
> Give me 10 MBTI tests and I assure you each one will come back different.
> 
> When I'm in a bad mood and take MBTI tests I come back ISTP or INTJ. Lul.


I said before that anybody who is pissed off is using Te. lol Te is like the hard truth. 

Who uses Te when they are high and sitting around a drum circle with a bunch of hippies? There is a time for Te and there isn't a time for it. lol. Another reason I went from IEI to EIE. More Te. I may actually value Te. Who doesn't like efficiency?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Thorn said:


> The biggest thing I tell people is that if you're going to learn Socionics is that you need to leave MBTI stuff at the front door with the exception of extremely basic knowledge (Such as knowing that Se = Extraverted Sensing)
> 
> The IME's and MBTI cognitive functions do not really correlate. For example, I really think that MBTI Fi is really like 60% Socionics Fe. Some MBTI Si stuff (comparing past to present and future) could exchange over to Socionics Ni.
> 
> Or Te in MBTI (Strict rule-following and being a Manager from Hell) is basically just Beta Se/Ti. Lol
> _____________________________________________
> @*FearAndTrembling*
> Who typed you? You can PM it if you wish.
> 
> I was typed EIE by someone who runs a blog and a couple Socionics groups.
> They determined pretty quickly that I was Fe valuing and likely Fe was in my ego. So, we started talking about my "relationship" to Se and Ni to determine Alpha SF or Beta NF.
> 
> Also a fun thing they told me was "World rejecting" versus "World Accepting."
> 
> Se/Ni (Decisive) "rejects", Si/Ne (Judicious) "accepts."
> 
> This basically means that Se/Ni is discontented with the world and seeks to acquire more from it and bend the world to it's will.
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas Si/Ne valuing appreciates the things the world could give them and indulges in it.
> 
> 
> 
> I am very discontent with what is already there. I tend to make competitions out of nothing, therefore disrupting the "harmony" of what is already there. It's a bad habit. Friends and family joke that I make _everything_ a competition. It's kinda odd for me to think the world isn't a place for competition for better gain.
> 
> To make it worse, the thought of losing makes me mad. Lol.


I don't kiss and tell. I protect my sources.

I was thinking I was like Varys with all his little birds. But I can't remember which bird said what or what their names are.

I hate losing too. Was playing a girl in trivia. She must have beaten me the first ten times we played. I wanted to throw my phone against the wall. lol. So frustrated.


----------



## SheWolf

FearAndTrembling said:


> I said before that anybody who is pissed off is using Te. lol Te is like the hard truth.
> 
> Who uses Te when they are high and sitting around a drum circle with a bunch of hippies? There is a time for Te and there isn't a time for it. lol. Another reason I went from IEI to EIE. More Te. I may actually value Te. Who doesn't like efficiency?


Yeah. I'm efficient enough. I have to be for what I do.

I doubt I value it anymore. Te is also "whatever works."
That's how it has to be for efficiency and such. I need more structure to my life than that. 

Though specifically seeking strict structure is more TiSe.

Often my problem with Ti/Ne types is ambiguity frustrates me and they don't really provide enough force to their conclusions. I need strict yes and no and why. No room for guessing or open-endedness. I already have enough of that shit swimming in my mind. Someone needs to tether me to the ground.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Thorn said:


> Yeah. I'm efficient enough. I have to be for what I do.
> 
> I doubt I value it anymore. Te is also "whatever works."
> That's how it has to be for efficiency and such. I need more structure to my life than that.
> 
> Though specifically seeking strict structure is more TiSe.
> 
> Often my problem with Ti/Ne types is ambiguity frustrates me and they don't really provide enough force to their conclusions. I need strict yes and no and why. No room for guessing or open-endedness. I already have enough of that shit swimming in my mind. Someone needs to tether me to the ground.



Te has structure. It is not just going with everything that works. 

But as a larger subject, that is how you make it. lol. By using what works. You may think Trump is a scumbag for example but this guy is still going. I actually said before that wealth should be considered a mental illness. It takes a certain type of sociopathy to get so rich and crush competition like that. Even nice looking guys like Bill Gates. Should be treated as mentally ill.

Nietzsche said what is strong survives. But it is a pity that what is strong is often so evil and stupid.


----------



## SheWolf

FearAndTrembling said:


> I don't kiss and tell. I protect my sources.


Er, fair enough.



> I was thinking I was like Varys with all his little birds. But I can't remember which bird said what or what their names are.


May or may not be related to type. But I have an uncanny ability to remember people. Thus that's why I have a tendency to hold a nasty grudge. I know exactly what you told me, when you said, and what context. My memories of such are rather vivid.

I'm not someone to make an enemy out of because of this.

But it also means I never forget what you've done _for_ me, either.



> I hate losing too. Was playing a girl in trivia. She must have beaten me the first ten times we played. I wanted to throw my phone against the wall. lol. So frustrated.


I'm awful about it too. 

I absolutely hate this "Everybody is a winner!" thing that schools and whatever like to preach

My family tried to force feed that to me. Even as a kid I was like no, I'm not a winner. We all have the same "reward" but it means fucking nothing. I know I lost. And I would burn about it forever. I still do. Now, it's shameful for me to make a fuss about it. But that doesn't mean I'm not holding a metaphorical knife.

_Victory will be mine. _


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Thorn said:


> Er, fair enough.
> 
> 
> 
> May or may not be related to type. But I have an uncanny ability to remember people. Thus that's why I have a tendency to hold a nasty grudge. I know exactly what you told me, when you said, and what context. My memories of such are rather vivid.
> 
> I'm not someone to make an enemy out of because of this.
> 
> But it also means I never forget what you've done _for_ me, either.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm awful about it too.
> 
> I absolutely hate this "Everybody is a winner!" thing that schools and whatever like to preach
> 
> My family tried to force feed that to me. Even as a kid I was like no, I'm not a winner. We all have the same "reward" but it means fucking nothing. I know I lost. And I would burn about it forever. I still do. Now, it's shameful for me to make a fuss about it. But that doesn't mean I'm not holding a metaphorical knife.
> 
> _Victory will be mine. _


Victory is life.

lol. But seriously. Being alive is a victory. Every day. Like GOT said, there is only one God. And we always say no to him. We never lose to him. Not today.


----------



## SheWolf

FearAndTrembling said:


> Te has structure. It is not just going with everything that works.


Logic is going to have structure. But, I'm saying, Te has a tendency to forgo more rules.



> But as a larger subject, that is how you make it. lol. By using what works. You may think Trump is a scumbag for example but this guy is still going. I actually said before that wealth should be considered a mental illness. It takes a certain type of sociopathy to get so rich and crush competition like that. Even nice looking guys like Bill Gates. Should be treated as mentally ill.


Trump is good at what he does. I won't deny any of that.

Competition is a drug, really. I don't like trampling or manipulating people, tbh. But that doesn't mean I haven't done it before. 



> Nietzsche said what is strong survives. But it is a pity that what is strong is often so evil and stupid.


It depends. I do think that the only way to survive is to be strong and not take anything. Don't let anyone or anything get to you and don't hesitate when a threat presents itself

But then there comes a point where it's not even about surviving anymore. Because you can get high off of it and perhaps even fear the low man on the totem pole again. Thus, you fall into the trap of power.


----------



## SheWolf

FearAndTrembling said:


> Victory is life.
> 
> lol. But seriously. Being alive is a victory. Every day. Like GOT said, there is only one God. And we always say no to him. We never lose to him. Not today.


Being alive is a victory. Because the world is a place that seeks to crush you. Don't let it. Kick it's ass. Lol.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Thorn said:


> Being alive is a victory. Because the world is a place that seeks to crush you. Don't let it. Kick it's ass. Lol.



Somebody said something like, "effort supposes resistance". Why does it take effort for me to assert my will? Because the world is resisting. lol.

You are all resisting. Everything living and dead.

Like a CS Lewis book. Aliens find humans strange. We have no God because we all think we are little Gods ourselves. All humans think they are God. Allan Watts said same thing. God is what everybody is but nobody admits to being.


----------



## Vermillion

Transience said:


> Then why don't you try and breathe life into it?
> 
> Also, where are all the gammas that are supposed to be here? :|


topkek
It's alright. Now there are three gammas here. And 3's a crowd... especially for gammas. :tongue:


----------



## Transience

Night Huntress said:


> topkek
> It's alright. Now there are three gammas here. And 3's a crowd... especially for gammas. :tongue:


Three? Am I missing someone?


----------



## Vermillion

Transience said:


> Three? Am I missing someone?


Yea I was including Entropic because he was here a while ago.

Please change your avatar. I'm really bored of itttttt


----------



## Scarlet Eyes

@Animal I see you're now typing as ISFP/ESI.  So do you relate more to Ne polr over Se polr?


----------



## Entropic

mistakenforstranger said:


> Would you say one's type in MBTI is the same as it is Socionics? As I've learned more recently, I don't see how the systems are so incompatible. Earlier I was guilty of INFJ = INFp or INFj, but now I can't see how from a functional standpoint that INFp = INFP or INFj = INFJ (MBTI), yet there's many INFPs as typed by MBTI on here who claim to be INFps (and INFJs as INFjs). Just using INFx as my example, as that's what I've observed, and I'm not sure if other introverted types have this problem as well. The functions seem to translate over, but Socionics has a greater sense of how they actually operate.
> 
> @*FearAndTrembling*, I typed as EII on the Sociotype.com test when I first took it, but I'm pretty sure I don't value Fi. Also, Donnie Darko is a very Ni movie. Donnie's probably IEI or ILI. His English teacher (Drew Barrymore) too. IEI or EIE for her. It's been a while since I've seen it.


Personally I think that if you use a function-based approach in the MBTI, it should be the same in socionics. Not everyone does though, and that's part of the problem with the MBTI; there is no universal structure of how to type within it.

Like you say, I have a hard time seeing myself or identifying myself as an INTP in the MBTI though that's what I initially typed as, because in retrospect, when I run into other self-identified INTPs that type based on the functions at least, I realize how different I am from them. Like there is this guy Peter that sometimes writes in here and elsewhere that self-identifies as an MBTI INTJ and he's definitely an ILI in socionics. He types that based on the functions and Jung's writings.

Which is why I say I don't think OrangeAppled really quite understands socionics because she said she just doesn't identify with how socionics describes Fi but she does with regards to Jung's description. Personally, even if Jung and socionics ultimately arrive at different ways of conceptualizing and describing Fi, I always find myself thinking that that person is an Fi dom and that just carries over in both the MBTI and in socionics. I never think, "that person is such an MBTI X but socionics Y", because the way I began to understand the functions in the MBTI was approaching the essence of what Jung was trying to get at. So I just conversed that when I tried to understand socionics and I actually find that they wholeheartedly agree with each other.

The only time I can see people getting hung up is when they interpret the types, functions/IEs and descriptions etc. very literally. Then I do agree there is a difference, but I would say this difference is largely due to cultural and structural differences, not necessarily a difference of essence, if that makes sense.

So I agree with you that socionics is just better at defining what MBTI has been trying to get at and does a so-so good job at, most of the time. It's interesting to come across MBTI writings that very strongly convene or correspond with socionics without intending to. Surely these are not pure coincidences. For example, take Linda Berens' description of Ni:



> Foreseeing implications and likely effects without external data; realizing “what will be”; conceptualizing new ways of seeing things; envisioning transformations; getting an image of profound meaning or far-reaching symbols. *Transforming with a metaperspective.


I mean, the process she's describing is actually pretty much word for word what socionics attributes to Ni as being a dynamic element focused on understanding time. Both Nardi and Berens in their cooperative works also understand Ni as transformation and change, especially with regards to the self, which is again very similar to how socionics describes Ni because being focused on the dynamic aspect of time means understanding processes of change.

As for Donnie Darko, I agree, it's a very Ni movie. I think Donnie is possibly an LIE though, but ILI could work too. His reaction to the life line is a very Fe-devaluing expression, imo, because the way she describes fear and love is very Fe (emotions are more akin to objects that make us feel; the video she used to demonstrate this also uses some kid that goes overkill on the Fe):






What he's trying to say is that there is more to human feelings than just the feelings in themselves; they create relationships and we can use these to connect. I actually don't think Donnie would have had nearly as much of an issue to accept this concept if she has presented the assignment in a more Fi way of how our feelings affect our personal relationships with other people as opposed to focusing on how to categorize feelings and our reactions as objects in themselves.


----------



## Transience

Night Huntress said:


> Yea I was including Entropic because he was here a while ago.
> 
> Please change your avatar. I'm really bored of itttttt


Ah, lol I just looked at the thread and saw 3+ pages filled with posts from Betas so


wth? no, I like it :/
You've barely seen it around, how in the world are you bored of it already? lol


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Transience said:


> Ah, lol I just looked at the thread and saw 3+ pages filled with posts from Betas so
> 
> 
> wth? no, I like it :/
> You've barely seen it around, how in the world are you bored of it already? lol


Hm... that usename makes me rather suspicious of you... 

Um, but yes! I am a Gamma but I don't really frequent this thread as often as I've kind of grown tired of Socionics as of late. I've been more pre-occupied by this year's election, global warming (this year is the warmest year on meteorological record), and some new trends I think are emerging. Hello though and welcome! I am rather new to this place as well.


----------



## Transience

Scoobyscoob said:


> Hm... that usename makes me rather suspicious of you...
> 
> Um, but yes! I am a Gamma but I don't really frequent this thread as often as I've kind of grown tired of Socionics as of late. I've been more pre-occupied by this year's election, global warming (this year is the warmest year on meteorological record), and some new trends I think are emerging. Hello though and welcome! I am rather new to this place as well.


Suspicious? Why?
Hmm, yeah that's understandable. True, 2016 has had its fair share of disasters. We've been breaking temperature records 3 years in a row too.
And thanks for the welcome


----------



## Vermillion

Transience said:


> Ah, lol I just looked at the thread and saw 3+ pages filled with posts from Betas so
> 
> wth? no, I like it :/
> You've barely seen it around, how in the world are you bored of it already? lol


I've seen it around every time you post and that's enough for me PLS CHANGE or I'll cry

Unless, I mean, you like seeing me cry. And I wouldn't put that past you LMAO


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Transience said:


> Suspicious? Why?
> Hmm, yeah that's understandable. True, 2016 has had its fair share of disasters. We've been breaking temperature records 3 years in a row too.
> And thanks for the welcome


You seem like the type of person to make a person fall madly in love with you, then due to you being transience one day decide, "You know what? I'm leaving!". :wink: You being the ultimate femme fatale (or male gigolo). :wink: Please forgive me if what I have written is not the case with you. :tongue:

!!! Yes, finally someone who doesn't mind discussing the global trends in weather and doesn't think climate talk to be insufferably boring! :shocked: I'm keeping an eye on you now! :kitteh:

You are quite welcome, your one post has quickly changed my mind about you. :wink:


----------



## SheWolf

Scoobyscoob said:


> You seem like the type of person to make a person fall madly in love with you, then due to you being transience one day decide, "You know what? I'm leaving!". :wink: You being the ultimate femme fatale (or male gigolo). :wink: Please forgive me if what I have written is not the case with you. :tongue:
> 
> !!! Yes, finally someone who doesn't mind discussing the global trends in weather and doesn't think climate talk to be insufferably boring! :shocked: I'm keeping an eye on you now! :kitteh:
> 
> You are quite welcome, your one post has quickly changed my mind about you. :wink:


_Gracious._ You're an emotive one, lol.

I don't think even I've used that many emoticons in my posts/messages before :shocked:


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Thorn said:


> _Gracious._ You're an emotive one, lol.
> 
> I don't think even I've used that many emoticons in my posts/messages before :shocked:


lol, I'm not that emotive in person. I simply toss in a lot more smileys when I write something on a forum to not seem cold. I've been told that what I write has a very cold tone to it, and I would agree. The emoticons are simply to make what I write seem warmer. That particular post did have a very high emoticon to word ratio though, I will agree with you there. :wink:


----------



## SheWolf

Scoobyscoob said:


> lol, I'm not that emotive in person. I simply toss in a lot more smileys when I write something on a forum to not seem cold. I've been told that what I write has a very cold tone to it, and I would agree. The emoticons are simply to make what I write seem warmer. That particular post did have a very high emoticon to word ratio though, I will agree with you there. :wink:


Heh~

I've never gotten a cold tone from you at all.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Thorn said:


> Heh~
> 
> I've never gotten a cold tone from you at all.


Maybe that's because we're both ice cold and thus seem normal to one another. :wink:


----------



## SheWolf

Scoobyscoob said:


> Maybe that's because we're both ice cold and thus seem normal to one another. :wink:


Wouldn't be the first time I was referred to as a frigid bitch. Lol.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Thorn said:


> Wouldn't be the first time I was referred to as a frigid bitch. Lol.


LoL, speaking of frigid bitch, someone on youtube today called my wife a frigid bitch. Must have been another happy dude who tried to hit on Mrs. Scoobyscoob then got shut down hardcore by her in probably a very humiliating fashion too. :laughing: :wink:


----------



## mistakenforstranger

Entropic said:


> Personally I think that if you use a function-based approach in the MBTI, it should be the same in socionics. Not everyone does though, and that's part of the problem with the MBTI; there is no universal structure of how to type within it.
> 
> Like you say, I have a hard time seeing myself or identifying myself as an INTP in the MBTI though that's what I initially typed as, because in retrospect, when I run into other self-identified INTPs that type based on the functions at least, I realize how different I am from them. Like there is this guy Peter that sometimes writes in here and elsewhere that self-identifies as an MBTI INTJ and he's definitely an ILI in socionics. He types that based on the functions and Jung's writings.


Yeah, I agree. I tested as INFP on the very first MBTI test I took (which was the actual full test), but then when I see actual INFPs who use/value Fi, I see a pretty clear difference between us too. I even learned a different way of seeing the world from a certain INFP/EII on here, even if I was resistant to it at first. And with learning Socionics recently, it made the difference a lot clearer, since those definitions aren't as ambiguous. Though, if anyone thinks I seem EII/INFP (or any other type), I wouldn't mind hearing an opinion. I'm pretty new to posting on here, so people probably don't have an opinion on me yet. I've heard from you and @*Fenix Wulfheart*, though, and I've appreciated both of your knowledge/insight on the subject. I'm still open to any typing as I learn more, but I guess IEI makes the most sense at the moment.



> Which is why I say I don't think OrangeAppled really quite understands socionics because she said she just doesn't identify with how socionics describes Fi but she does with regards to Jung's description. Personally, even if Jung and socionics ultimately arrive at different ways of conceptualizing and describing Fi, I always find myself thinking that that person is an Fi dom and that just carries over in both the MBTI and in socionics. I never think, "that person is such an MBTI X but socionics Y", because the way I began to understand the functions in the MBTI was approaching the essence of what Jung was trying to get at. So I just conversed that when I tried to understand socionics and I actually find that they wholeheartedly agree with each other.
> 
> The only time I can see people getting hung up is when they interpret the types, functions/IEs and descriptions etc. very literally. Then I do agree there is a difference, but I would say this difference is largely due to cultural and structural differences, not necessarily a difference of essence, if that makes sense.


Yeah, the Fi as defined in Socionics isn't really that different from how I understood Fi through cognitive function theory, as it is with many of the other functions. It merely builds upon what I already knew about them. I think the only functions/IEs that seemed different to me in some respects was Se/Si. A lot of what was attributed to Si in Socionics sounds like what passes for Se in the MBTI forum, like the immersion in sensory experience, while Se in Socionics is force/will. I also prefer how the model incorporates all eight functions. 



> So I agree with you that socionics is just better at defining what MBTI has been trying to get at and does a so-so good job at, most of the time. It's interesting to come across MBTI writings that very strongly convene or correspond with socionics without intending to. Surely these are not pure coincidences. For example, take Linda Berens' description of Ni:
> 
> 
> I mean, the process she's describing is actually pretty much word for word what socionics attributes to Ni as being a dynamic element focused on understanding time. Both Nardi and Berens in their cooperative works also understand Ni as transformation and change, especially with regards to the self, which is again very similar to how socionics describes Ni because being focused on the dynamic aspect of time means understanding processes of change.


Yeah, or these descriptions too, at least on a very basic level: Introverted iNtuiting - (Ni)



> Introverted iNtuiting involves synthesizing the seemingly paradoxical or contradictory, which takes understanding to a new level.
> 
> 
> Using this process, we can have moments when completely new, unimagined realizations come to us.
> 
> 
> A disengagement from interactions in the room occurs, followed by a sudden "Aha!" or "That's it!" The sense of the future and the realizations that come from introverted iNtuiting have a sureness and an imperative quality that seem to demand action and help us stay focused on fulfilling our vision or dream of how things will be in the future.
> 
> 
> *Using this process, we might rely on a focal device or symbolic action to predict, enlighten, or transform.*
> 
> 
> *We could find ourselves laying out how the future will unfold based on unseen trends and telling signs.*
> 
> 
> This process can involve working out complex concepts or systems of thinking or conceiving of symbolic or novel ways to understand things that are universal.
> 
> 
> It can lead to creating transcendent experiences or solutions





> As for Donnie Darko, I agree, it's a very Ni movie. I think Donnie is possibly an LIE though, but ILI could work too. His reaction to the life line is a very Fe-devaluing expression, imo, because the way she describes fear and love is very Fe (emotions are more akin to objects that make us feel; the video she used to demonstrate this also uses some kid that goes overkill on the Fe):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What he's trying to say is that there is more to human feelings than just the feelings in themselves; they create relationships and we can use these to connect. I actually don't think Donnie would have had nearly as much of an issue to accept this concept if she has presented the assignment in a more Fi way of how our feelings affect our personal relationships with other people as opposed to focusing on how to categorize feelings and our reactions as objects in themselves.


Good points. Is the teacher ESE then? I watched a few more clips that I could find on YouTube, and Donnie's much more likely a Logical type, Te/Fi-valuing, as you say, so ILI makes the most sense, but I've never considered LIE, as I always thought Ni-ego for him. He just seems so detached from everything/everyone. As far as the video, I think he's just opposed to how simplified it is, that she's missing the total reality by only focusing on two of the most basic emotions. It isn't an accurate model of life, in other words. So, is he seeking more authenticity (Fi) or accuracy (Ti)? Very simplified way of distinguishing Fi/Ti, but probably the first for Donnie. Like in this video below. I think Drew Barrymore's character is Fe (EIE or IEI), as opposed to Donnie's Fi: "The rabbits are us" vs "The rabbit isn't like us (because it isn't human)". @*FearAndTrembling* says the same thing when he posts that Werner Herzog vid of a penguin walking on his own. He says that penguin is us.






Some Te, perhaps, as if to say, Get your facts right, man. And in one of the sessions with his psych doc, he says he needs proof of God's existence.


----------



## Entropic

mistakenforstranger said:


> Yeah, I agree. I tested as INFP on the very first MBTI test I took (which was the actual full test), but then when I see actual INFPs who use/value Fi, I see a pretty clear difference between us too. I even learned a different way of seeing the world from a certain INFP/EII on here, even if I was resistant to it at first. And with learning Socionics recently, it made the difference a lot clearer, since those definitions aren't as ambiguous. Though, if anyone thinks I seem EII/INFP (or any other type), I wouldn't mind hearing an opinion. I'm pretty new to posting on here, so people probably don't have an opinion on me yet. I've heard from you and @*Fenix Wulfheart*, though, and I've appreciated both of your knowledge/insight on the subject. I'm still open to any typing as I learn more, but I guess IEI makes the most sense at the moment.


Yes, I agree that IEI makes the most sense for you. I have a hard time seeing any other alternative except maybe LII except I don't think that makes nearly as much sense.



> Yeah, the Fi as defined in Socionics isn't really that different from how I understood Fi through cognitive function theory, as it is with many of the other functions. It merely builds upon what I already knew about them. I think the only functions/IEs that seemed different to me in some respects was Se/Si. A lot of what was attributed to Si in Socionics sounds like what passes for Se in the MBTI forum, like the immersion in sensory experience, while Se in Socionics is force/will. I also prefer how the model incorporates all eight functions.


I agree on both Fi and Se/Si. In some ways I also think MBTI Se is really just Te in socionics, but I argue that problem is more because typically, MBTI describes functions based on the behaviors of the types, but somehow correlate the entire behavior to a specific function as a result. 



> Yeah, or these descriptions too, at least on a very basic level: Introverted iNtuiting - (Ni)


Yeah, that's a good one as well. 



> Good points. Is the teacher ESE then? I watched a few more clips that I could find on YouTube, and Donnie's much more likely a Logical type, Te/Fi-valuing, as you say, so ILI makes the most sense, but I've never considered LIE, as I always thought Ni-ego for him. He just seems so detached from everything/everyone. As far as the video, I think he's just opposed to how simplified it is, that she's missing the total reality by only focusing on two of the most basic emotions. It isn't an accurate model of life, in other words. So, is he seeking more authenticity (Fi) or accuracy (Ti)? Very simplified way of distinguishing Fi/Ti, but probably the first for Donnie. Like in this video below. I think Drew Barrymore's character is Fe (EIE or IEI), as opposed to Donnie's Fi: "The rabbits are us" vs "The rabbit isn't like us (because it isn't human)". @*FearAndTrembling* says the same thing when he posts that Werner Herzog vid of a penguin walking on his own. He says that penguin is us.


I've been thinking about what she could be, but ESE is probably not a bad guess. She definitely seems to experience herself as skillful in the realm of ethics, and you can see how she takes emotional control of the environment in that clip. That's why Donnie ends up saying that she should put the lifeline up her ass, because he doesn't know how to retort to the way she tries to manipulate the emotional situation. 

I also agree with that the other teacher is a beta NF. I lean EIE though, because I think that example that you quoted is typical of Ne. IEIs are Ne ignoring so they aren't as likely to express themselves like that. 


> Some Te, perhaps, as if to say, Get your facts right, man. And in one of the sessions with his psych doc, he says he needs proof of God's existence.


Yeah, in that context I can see why that could be interpreted as Te in the sense that God is only real if there is a factual basis for the existence of God. That clip that you found about the smurfs is a good example of Te valuing too, I think, and gamma in general. It seems as if he's rejecting the more Ti and thus also theoretical, attitude of his friends.


----------



## Transience

Scoobyscoob said:


> You seem like the type of person to make a person fall madly in love with you, then due to you being transience one day decide, "You know what? I'm leaving!". :wink: You being the ultimate femme fatale (or male gigolo). :wink: Please forgive me if what I have written is not the case with you. :tongue:


Huh
_That's _what you got from my username? ok
Either way, I wouldn't know for sure. I'm not too keen on building relationships with humans. Most of them are a pain to maintain. Although having a substantially good network comes with its benefits.
Also, I highly doubt what you said describes me - the way that statement is phrased is way too light for something as serious as a relationship. It sounds like me trying to decide whether I just grab some veggies and make a salad or cook myself a meal.



> !!! Yes, finally someone who doesn't mind discussing the global trends in weather and doesn't think climate talk to be insufferably boring! :shocked: I'm keeping an eye on you now! :kitteh:


I quite like meteorology, so yes. But even so, climate change is pressing issue we face today, and regardless of how boring it may seem, we need to discuss it, analyze it and rectify what needs to be. 
huh ok



> You are quite welcome, your one post has quickly changed my mind about you. :wink:


Has it? Interesting.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Entropic said:


> Personally I think that if you use a function-based approach in the MBTI, it should be the same in socionics. Not everyone does though, and that's part of the problem with the MBTI; there is no universal structure of how to type within it.
> 
> Like you say, I have a hard time seeing myself or identifying myself as an INTP in the MBTI though that's what I initially typed as, because in retrospect, when I run into other self-identified INTPs that type based on the functions at least, I realize how different I am from them. Like there is this guy Peter that sometimes writes in here and elsewhere that self-identifies as an MBTI INTJ and he's definitely an ILI in socionics. He types that based on the functions and Jung's writings.
> 
> Which is why I say I don't think OrangeAppled really quite understands socionics because she said she just doesn't identify with how socionics describes Fi but she does with regards to Jung's description. Personally, even if Jung and socionics ultimately arrive at different ways of conceptualizing and describing Fi, I always find myself thinking that that person is an Fi dom and that just carries over in both the MBTI and in socionics. I never think, "that person is such an MBTI X but socionics Y", because the way I began to understand the functions in the MBTI was approaching the essence of what Jung was trying to get at. So I just conversed that when I tried to understand socionics and I actually find that they wholeheartedly agree with each other.
> 
> The only time I can see people getting hung up is when they interpret the types, functions/IEs and descriptions etc. very literally. Then I do agree there is a difference, but I would say this difference is largely due to cultural and structural differences, not necessarily a difference of essence, if that makes sense.
> 
> So I agree with you that socionics is just better at defining what MBTI has been trying to get at and does a so-so good job at, most of the time. It's interesting to come across MBTI writings that very strongly convene or correspond with socionics without intending to. Surely these are not pure coincidences. For example, take Linda Berens' description of Ni:
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, the process she's describing is actually pretty much word for word what socionics attributes to Ni as being a dynamic element focused on understanding time. Both Nardi and Berens in their cooperative works also understand Ni as transformation and change, especially with regards to the self, which is again very similar to how socionics describes Ni because being focused on the dynamic aspect of time means understanding processes of change.


It's convenient how you are always right and always interpret everything right. You think a fi dom in MBTI transfers to Fi dom in Socionics. That is unfounded. I have heard you say you never even read the Jung chapter on Fi and only one read chapter in the entire book. Which is a very short one. 





Entropic said:


> Yes, I agree that IEI makes the most sense for you. I have a hard time seeing any other alternative except maybe LII except I don't think that makes nearly as much sense.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree on both Fi and Se/Si. In some ways I also think MBTI Se is really just Te in socionics, but I argue that problem is more because typically, MBTI describes functions based on the behaviors of the types, but somehow correlate the entire behavior to a specific function as a result.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's a good one as well.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been thinking about what she could be, but ESE is probably not a bad guess. She definitely seems to experience herself as skillful in the realm of ethics, and you can see how she takes emotional control of the environment in that clip. That's why Donnie ends up saying that she should put the lifeline up her ass, because he doesn't know how to retort to the way she tries to manipulate the emotional situation.
> 
> I also agree with that the other teacher is a beta NF. I lean EIE though, because I think that example that you quoted is typical of Ne. IEIs are Ne ignoring so they aren't as likely to express themselves like that.
> 
> 
> Yeah, in that context I can see why that could be interpreted as Te in the sense that God is only real if there is a factual basis for the existence of God. That clip that you found about the smurfs is a good example of Te valuing too, I think, and gamma in general. It seems as if he's rejecting the more Ti and thus also theoretical, attitude of his friends.


There is no logic to this and I will tell you why. You keep saying Ti is theoretical. Ok. Is Socionics theoretical? You yourself are rejecting reality for theory. You are up to your ears in theory and obviously prefer it. So if that scene is Ti, how aren't you? Or anybody involved in this subject? How do you explain that? What makes those guys Ti but you buried in theory not Ti? Seriously, explain that to me. You say Ti is about rules and and about theory. SO IS SOCIONICS. Which you love. I have asked you before to name me the Te elements of Socionics. What part of it is Te that attracts you? The rules? The theory? If you actually reflect your "logic" back at yourself you will see you just typed yourself a Ti type. Funny that the guy who created this thread said the same exact thing about you -- that by your own logic, you are a Ti type. 

Maybe OrangeAppled doesn't know Fi, but you certainly don't know Ti.

A Te type like Freud would throw this theory in the garbage. William James too. Skinner. Piaget. Basically any credible psychologist who ever lived.

Reminds me of a quote on math and physics. That all you need to do physics is pen, paper and wastebasket. In Math, same thing but without the wastebasket.


----------



## Dora

Bash said:


> Thank you for this. Indeed, SEEs are a lot easier to spot.


Also, for some reason, everyone seems to adore ENFPs...


----------



## Kito

Yo, ESI here, most likely anyways. I read the gamma descriptions and I got a few qualms. Are there any gammas here that just don't care all that much for serious discussion? I'm a lot more fun loving and relaxed like "yo lets just _chill_" compared to how gammas supposedly are. Is it more characteristic of gamma SFs (ESI, SEE) to have a softer, more chill kinda assertiveness to them?

I'm thinking my Enneatype may influence this, I don't have an ounce of type 1 in me.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Being chill would be more on the irrational end of things I think. For Gamma, that'd be most obvious in ILI. Strengthening of the Ni element would increase that.


----------



## Bash

I'd say that SEEs is rather chill most of the time. Are you E7?


----------



## Parade of Sparrows

Dora said:


> Also, for some reason, everyone seems to adore ENFPs...


Whats not to adore?


----------



## Bash

Memory of Talon said:


> Whats not to adore?


Too scattered


----------



## Max

Bash said:


> Too scattered


Hell yes, they are. And that's me saying that. Ne is one hell of a mind-altering drug. 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk


----------



## Dora

Memory of Talon said:


> Whats not to adore?


I'm just jealous. xNTJs are already rare, and I like them. I'm not big on sharing.


----------



## Figure

Memory of Talon said:


> Whats not to adore?


Honestly, they strike me as being ideologically pretentious. I usually really like the Fi subtype and think they're cool, but even with them there's a hint of snobbery about their ideals. As in, if you don't share their opinions, have a path in life that they find acceptable, or strike them as "close minded" (just for having firm opinions) your ideas are taken with a grain of salt. They have this ingrained desire to instruct people that can feel really patronizing. 

Also, they're actually very sensitive in a way that isn't compatible with being an Se valuing type. To some extent I am deliberately "mean" to people as a way of waiting to be responded to, and IEE's actually take it personally instead of playing along.


----------



## Parade of Sparrows

Figure said:


> Honestly, they strike me as being ideologically pretentious. I usually really like the Fi subtype and think they're cool, but even with them there's a hint of snobbery about their ideals. As in, if you don't share their opinions, have a path in life that they find acceptable, or strike them as "close minded" (just for having firm opinions) your ideas are taken with a grain of salt. They have this ingrained desire to instruct people that can feel really patronizing.
> 
> Also, they're actually very sensitive in a way that isn't compatible with being an Se valuing type. To some extent I am deliberately "mean" to people as a way of waiting to be responded to, and IEE's actually take it personally instead of playing along.


I do agree with you on the sensitivity aspect but I see them in a similar light to myself in that the sensitivity is often short lived. Those that I've known have been to me at least negotiable once they have been triggered. It just takes a fair bit longer than I would have liked. 

I have a harder time with EIIs in this regard. 

I adore IEEs for the most part personally. They tend to be my best mates until they drive me insane. Then we stop talking for a long time until we can bare each other again.


----------



## ShuttleRun

Figure said:


> Honestly, they strike me as being ideologically pretentious. I usually really like the Fi subtype and think they're cool, but even with them there's a hint of snobbery about their ideals. As in, if you don't share their opinions, have a path in life that they find acceptable, or strike them as "close minded" (just for having firm opinions) your ideas are taken with a grain of salt. *They have this ingrained desire to instruct people that can feel really patronizing. *
> 
> Also, they're actually very sensitive in a way that isn't compatible with being an Se valuing type. To some extent I am deliberately "mean" to people as a way of waiting to be responded to, and IEE's actually take it personally instead of playing along.


True that, but as an NF I get it. NFs are holier-than-thou snobs.


----------



## ShuttleRun

Entropic said:


> Unfortunately, we've yet to move into a true post-industrialization era where we have no reliance on coal and oil products. The biggest problem isn't actually a lack of technology but the biggest problem is the lack of investors into said technology. It is currently cheaper to rely on fossil fuels so many companies refuse to switch over and create more viable tech for those that would otherwise not afford more sustainable alternatives.


Well there are some people who are genuinely concerned with the direction where climate change is headed to, and one of them is Bill Gates, and a few other billionaires. I believe he and his fund that he set up is investing $1 billion into (renewable) technologies that would help counter climate change.

I haven't really followed climate change extensively lately so I don't know how serious it is or how bleak the future looks right now. But I think the good news is that renewable technologies are growing exponentially, so that should help a little. Countries like Germany are doing a really good job adopting renewable energy like solar and wind. It's no wonder that all the top corporations are investing big in renewables, if only for the simple reason that it makes financial sense.


----------



## DOGSOUP

Figure said:


> Also, they're actually very sensitive in a way that isn't compatible with being an Se valuing type. To some extent I am deliberately "mean" to people as a way of waiting to be responded to, and IEE's actually take it personally instead of playing along.


Relevant:


----------



## Immolate

DOGSOUP said:


> Relevant:


 @owlet


----------



## owlet

lets mosey said:


> @*owlet*


:laughing: Yes, very much so


----------



## Entropic

Kito said:


> Yo, ESI here, most likely anyways. I read the gamma descriptions and I got a few qualms. Are there any gammas here that just don't care all that much for serious discussion? I'm a lot more fun loving and relaxed like "yo lets just _chill_" compared to how gammas supposedly are. Is it more characteristic of gamma SFs (ESI, SEE) to have a softer, more chill kinda assertiveness to them?
> 
> I'm thinking my Enneatype may influence this, I don't have an ounce of type 1 in me.


What do you mean by a serious discussion anyway? I think merry/serious is a bit misleading because the terms seem to indicate that one is a party pooper and another wants to be the life of the party; rather, merry is more about how merry types focus on the nature of expressiveness itself. In terms of actual conversation subjects, any quadra can be into "deep" or serious discussions. Instead, merry types are more about creating various emotional atmospheres and manipulating them. If I were to pick better words to define merry/serious, I'd probably pick something more like expressiveness/sentiments. Serious types seem to focus more on unsaid personal sentiments and personal feelings towards other objects whereas merry types focus more on the strength of expressions in themselves.

I actually began making a full intertype analysis about that by using a clip from Breaking Bad because that clip is so good at demonstrating how the various quadras desire to interact with other people. Here's the sample that I uploaded:


----------



## Kito

Entropic said:


> What do you mean by a serious discussion anyway? I think merry/serious is a bit misleading because the terms seem to indicate that one is a party pooper and another wants to be the life of the party; rather, merry is more about how merry types focus on the nature of expressiveness itself. In terms of actual conversation subjects, any quadra can be into "deep" or serious discussions. Instead, merry types are more about creating various emotional atmospheres and manipulating them. If I were to pick better words to define merry/serious, I'd probably pick something more like expressiveness/sentiments. Serious types seem to focus more on unsaid personal sentiments and personal feelings towards other objects whereas merry types focus more on the strength of expressions in themselves.
> 
> I actually began making a full intertype analysis about that by using a clip from Breaking Bad because that clip is so good at demonstrating how the various quadras desire to interact with other people. Here's the sample that I uploaded:


That does make much more sense. Can you explain how personal feelings towards objects might manifest in a conversation? I'd say I'm good at perceiving emotional atmospheres but don't really try to manipulate them.


----------



## Max

Am I the only person here THAT KNOWS THAT THINGS MAKE SENSE IN X WAY but really doesn't care about that, and actually prefers to take things easy and just go with the flow and phrase things how I want and don't care about technicalities within logic? If I have a point to make, I will make it and make it plausible, but when I don't care, I JUST DON'T CARE?

It drives me insane when everyone is like "things have to make sense all the time". Yes, things can make sense and sometimes you have to explain things, but not everything does make sense. Why waste your time trying to make sense of everything if it means sacrificing productivity and other things which are a priority over it? It's just... ugh... what is the point in life if you aren't living in it and enjoying its wonders?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk


----------



## Entropic

Kito said:


> That does make much more sense. Can you explain how personal feelings towards objects might manifest in a conversation? I'd say I'm good at perceiving emotional atmospheres but don't really try to manipulate them.


Typically, it tends to be focused on like/dislike and moral good/bad. "I don't like that movie", "that person has a good character", that kind of thing. Goes along with how Fi is static also, so it's not context-dependent like Fe is. Fe understands feelings based on the situation, how people feel now and tries to manipulate those feelings, but Fi thinks of feelings more as intrinsic to the person and not nearly as malleable or easy to change. That's why gamma quadra in particular is considered to express "harsh judgements" because they make moral statements about people and situations based on what is observable in the present (Se) and do not necessarily fear in making that known. Later on in the clip I provided, Skyler prompts Walter Jr. to express himself as well, and he said it's bullshit from the get go. That's what I mean. It's typical of Se-valuing types to be more direct like that. It's also very much in line with the logic of gamma's "harsh judgements" by making a moral statement about the situation and not really mincing words about it. 

I think one of the easier ways to understand the differences between Fe and Fi is actually analyzing how Fe and Fi approach feelings such as love; you see this very clearly in music where Fe style of music is more about expressing how strongly you feel, whereas Fi is more about how you feel about the relationship but strength of expression isn't necessarily at the forefront. To Fe, strength of relationship is implied by strength of expression, and to Fi, strength of expression is implied by strength of relationship.

As examples of Fi:


----------



## Entropic

I don't listen to a whole lot of Fe-ish music so I don't know many good examples, but a couple, at least:


----------



## Wild

Dora said:


> Hi, Wild. I know considerably less about Socionics, and I don't like Socionics tests, because I haven't tested as the same type twice, but I like their idea of subtypes, as the description for SEE-Fi is on point for me. I rarely test as SEE, but it's the only description that fits.
> 
> I also like their relationship theory, Duality, and Quadras, so that's why I flirt with Socionics a lot. How about you?


Late response, sorry!

I've been mildly interested in it for about a year now. I know the basics of all the functions, some of the subtypes, etc. The SEE-Se descriptions actually don't fit me that well because they all sound like they're describing a crackhead, and as far as I'm aware, I'm not a crackhead. :blushed: I do have a much stronger Se-Te axis than Fi-Ni, though. My Socionics-genius friends and acquaintances also seem to agree pretty unanimously on my subtype, so I go with what they say.

I love the relationship theory, that's what originally got me into it. MBTI's relationship theory is basically that sensors and intuitives speak totally different languages (which is depressing and unfounded in my experience). Socionics actually puts a significant amount of emphasis on having the same feeling/thinking axis in order to see eye-to-eye, which I've always felt was important.


----------



## Dora

Wild said:


> Late response, sorry!
> 
> I've been mildly interested in it for about a year now. I know the basics of all the functions, some of the subtypes, etc. The SEE-Se descriptions actually don't fit me that well because they all sound like they're describing a crackhead, and as far as I'm aware, I'm not a crackhead. :blushed: I do have a much stronger Se-Te axis than Fi-Ni, though. My Socionics-genius friends and acquaintances also seem to agree pretty unanimously on my subtype, so I go with what they say.
> 
> I love the relationship theory, that's what originally got me into it. MBTI's relationship theory is basically that sensors and intuitives speak totally different languages (which is depressing and unfounded in my experience). Socionics actually puts a significant amount of emphasis on having the same feeling/thinking axis in order to see eye-to-eye, which I've always felt was important.


True enough about the MBTI relationship theory being lacking, and somewhat depressive. Socionics relationship theory makes good sense to me. And true enough, those people who really attract me to spend time with, and that make me believe I'm an extrovert, because they recharge my batteries are almost exclusively from the Gamma quadra. I'm guessing I might be a bit more set on sharing _all _functions, since I'm sx first, and want deep connection, and almost a merge of certain aspects. I get thrown off by all shadow functions.

Actually, lately I started debating whether I was the Fi subtype, even though I come across as an introvert, even though I'm not. Some parts of the Se subtype fit. Though, that just might be my ADHD, and being a counter-phobic 6. Everything but what I grayed out fits:



> *Description by V. Meged and A. Ovcharov*
> 
> The sensory subtype resembles an emotional, gusty and nervous person. Behind their anxiety and sincere discomfort the constant thirst for vigorous activity appears. Undertakes too much and thus wastes much energy in vain. Despite their efforts to be diplomatic, they often seem critical and categorical. Sometimes indignant but nonetheless does not forget to give compliments. While on one hand they are able to look down on the interlocutor and touch him/her with their prickly jokes; on the other hand can be very kind and willing to prove their kind nature if necessary. Possess good artistic abilities with which they amuse visitors. Usually thin and conscious of figure, periodically playing sports. Eyes are often small or deeply planted. Gestures display impatience and movements are nervous, gusty. Often change their pose; their gait appears weakened/shaky; speech tends to be either muffled or rapid.


PS: I also do use a considerable amount of Te, while my Ni sucks balls and I admire it greatly in others. However, my Se... well, I'm not sure if it's got a lame leg or something. I thought that being the extroverted subtype of an extrovert would be more confident, assertive, pushy, whatever...


----------



## Wild

Dora said:


> True enough about the MBTI relationship theory being lacking, and somewhat depressive. Socionics relationship theory makes good sense to me. And true enough, those people who really attract me to spend time with, and that make me believe I'm an extrovert, because they recharge my batteries are almost exclusively from the Gamma quadra. I'm guessing I might be a bit more set on sharing _all _functions, since I'm sx first, and want deep connection, and almost a merge of certain aspects. I get thrown off by all shadow functions.
> 
> Actually, lately I started debating whether I was the Fi subtype, even though I come across as an introvert, even though I'm not. Some parts of the Se subtype fit. Though, that just might be my ADHD, and being a counter-phobic 6. Everything but what I grayed out fits:
> 
> 
> 
> PS: I also do use a considerable amount of Te, while my Ni sucks balls and I admire it greatly in others. However, my Se... well, I'm not sure if it's got a lame leg or something. I thought that being the extroverted subtype of an extrovert would be more confident, assertive, pushy, whatever...


Very interesting! You almost seem to match the Se-subtype description better than I do.

What throws me off is the emphasis that's placed on nervousness and a need to keep moving. I'm one of the calmest people I know. I'll feel genuinely _nervous_ maybe once in a year. I'm also very comfortable most of the time. I'm not stupidly impulsive, either. In fact, the written description of Fi sub would seem to fit me better too, and I thought I was for awhile.

The arguments that my more knowledgeable friends have made to me for Se-sub despite the description:

- The Se sub written descriptions are an ill fit for the broader form of the actual type (remember, this theory was written by someone that's Se-polr, lol).
- When you're talking to me in person, my Te is much more apparent than you would see with most ESFPs.
- I tend to tell people what to do and/or have shockingly direct communication. Tend to give demands rather than gently encouraging people one way or another (which is more of an Fi-sub thing), though I'm still very gentle and aware of the effects my actions have on others.
- My focus in life is on doing. I'm constantly at work on something, extremely motivated, and I get through basically any obstacle through willpower, which I have an endless supply of (depending on how badly I want something in life).
- I often lack the soft/intimate intonations in my speech that Fi-subs are known for having, and I don't have as much interest in intimately knowing everyone's character; I have a certain lack of that kind of empathy. I see that as being a manifestation of my slightly lowered Fi.
- My Se is strong, but my Ni is extremely weak. The things that do manage to make me uncomfortable in life are almost invariably those having to do with patterns or being forced into longterm thought. Like, if you tell me to plan out the next year of my life (accounting for all realistic factors), I'll just cry while doing a shitty job. My padre is an LIE-Ni sub and he's frequently baffled by my constant lack of a plan and how I manage to still get through life simply by bulldozing through the problems I cause myself by being a fucktard.

The main point I seem to hear is that Se subs are less balanced in terms of their perceiving functions, while Fi subs are less balanced in their judging functions. I dunno if that helps you, but hopefully you gain some insight from this!


----------



## Dora

@Wild Actually, it is insightful. Reading through that, I'm more prone to think that I'm the most introverted Se subtype there is, if such a FrankenESFP exists. I seem to share a lot of what you pointed out were your friends' arguments. Except, I am not ambitious. I am not sure about the extremely motivated bit. On the one hand, I can hustle real hard, and put everything into my American football skills and form. On the other, because of lack of vision and paranoia of the future, I don't seem to be driven to work on anything that has a long-term reward thing, rather than short term.
I also run high-anxiety, high-stress, very physically tense at most times, rather reactive. I'm aggressive not in the sense of against people or explosive, but I run high-temper, and am very reactive to situations, and kick into gear pretty easy and immediately.

On the other hand, I am emotionally very intense and single-minded, and I come across as an introvert, and don't attract much attention for fear of being noticed in a bad way, so that doesn't really point at high Se, does it? I do not have the mellow attitude of a SEE-Fi though. I do not have an intimate voice with people unless I'm flirting (ok, I do a lot of that). I speak very directly, extremely blunt, and I guess I can have quite deadpan delivery...


----------



## Wild

Dora said:


> @Wild Actually, it is insightful. Reading through that, I'm more prone to think that I'm the most introverted Se subtype there is, if such a FrankenESFP exists. I seem to share a lot of what you pointed out were your friends' arguments. Except, I am not ambitious. I am not sure about the extremely motivated bit. On the one hand, I can hustle real hard, and put everything into my American football skills and form. On the other, because of lack of vision and paranoia of the future, I don't seem to be driven to work on anything that has a long-term reward thing, rather than short term.
> I also run high-anxiety, high-stress, very physically tense at most times, rather reactive. I'm aggressive not in the sense of against people or explosive, but I run high-temper, and am very reactive to situations, and kick into gear pretty easy and immediately.
> 
> On the other hand, I am emotionally very intense and single-minded, and I come across as an introvert, and don't attract much attention for fear of being noticed in a bad way, so that doesn't really point at high Se, does it? I do not have the mellow attitude of a SEE-Fi though. I do not have an intimate voice with people unless I'm flirting (ok, I do a lot of that). I speak very directly, extremely blunt, and I guess I can have quite deadpan delivery...


Well I don't want to speak from a voice of authority or anything, but you most definitely sound Se sub to me. I don't think Se necessarily = instant recipe for attention whore, nor do I think being an Se dom means you dominate every room you walk into (even if you're also Se sub). I know I haven't been as cool-headed for the entirety of my life either - for me it was a slow process that I had to work on for years starting from middle school. I also used to be much more anxious/flighty, so what you say about the ease of kicking into gear resonates with me.

I recommend talking it over with other people, though, because I'm really not a master at this stuff. I can just tell you that a lot of the traits you describe are similar to mine!


----------



## Dora

Wild said:


> I don't think Se necessarily = instant recipe for attention whore, nor do I think being an Se dom means you dominate every room you walk into (even if you're also Se sub).


Lol, I hate that stereotype! One of the very few things that trigger me. What I keep telling people is, that I wouldn't mind the reputation that ESFPs have that say we are heart of the party animals that serial suck dicks for digs and bed the whole football team as much as I do mind it, if I actually got laid:laughing:


----------



## Scoobyscoob

How many Gammas think Trump is going to last for more than 4 years, if even that? :wink:


----------



## Wild

Scoobyscoob said:


> How many Gammas think Trump is going to last for more than 4 years, if even that? :wink:


Snowball's chance in hell.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Wild said:


> Snowball's chance in hell.


Most would've move on by then to pursue prosperity. :wink:


----------



## Skeletalz

Scoobyscoob said:


> How many Gammas think Trump is going to last for more than 4 years, if even that? :wink:


Looking at how much of a mess the democrats are, I wouldnt be suprised if he gets a second term :wink:


----------



## Figure

I don't think he will be impeached.

If Trump does actually make the economy in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania better by 2018-19, he may have a chance at retaining those states and winning again especially if the Democrats run someone wonky and/or a Washington elitist against him. He won by slim margins, but huge turnout. 

If those states are the same or worse by then and the Democrat candidate is more mainstream, the Trump turnout will drop and he will likely lose those states, and the election. Possibly by a very large margin. This could also happen if he continues to focus only on international affairs - the base will forgive him, but not vote with the enthusiasm needed to overcome a natural barrier to winning those states. 

If the Democrats choose someone insane like Elizabeth Warren or someone who further polarizes the party and muffles out one side - or, if they continue to be the "resist" party without a clear message, they will struggle again and the 2020 election will be another tossup. The edge will be to Republicans if another Jill Stein comes in again and leaches away D votes, and it will come down to timing on specific efforts on the campaign trail if not.

Democrats really need to move to a more centrist position with new faces to lead the party that people can get excited about. If they continue to label everyone who disagrees with them as racist, misogynist, sexist, xenophobe and what not and throw rocks at public buildings in protest while _still _being part of the Washington elite, they will probably lose.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Skeletalz said:


> Looking at how much of a mess the democrats are, I wouldnt be suprised if he gets a second term :wink:


Hahahah, the democrats are always a mess, that hasn't really changed. :wink: It's still much too early to say, but at the moment it looks doubtful he'll win a second term, if he even decides to run again. The factors that got him elected no longer exist.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Figure said:


> I don't think he will be impeached.
> 
> If Trump does actually make the economy in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania better by 2018-19, he may have a chance at retaining those states and winning again especially if the Democrats run someone wonky and/or a Washington elitist against him. He won by slim margins, but huge turnout.
> 
> If those states are the same or worse by then and the Democrat candidate is more mainstream, the Trump turnout will drop and he will likely lose those states, and the election. Possibly by a very large margin. This could also happen if he continues to focus only on international affairs - the base will forgive him, but not vote with the enthusiasm needed to overcome a natural barrier to winning those states.
> 
> If the Democrats choose someone insane like Elizabeth Warren or someone who further polarizes the party and muffles out one side - or, if they continue to be the "resist" party without a clear message, they will struggle again and the 2020 election will be another tossup. The edge will be to Republicans if another Jill Stein comes in again and leaches away D votes, and it will come down to timing on specific efforts on the campaign trail if not.
> 
> Democrats really need to move to a more centrist position with new faces to lead the party that people can get excited about. If they continue to label everyone who disagrees with them as racist, misogynist, sexist, xenophobe and what not and throw rocks at public buildings in protest while _still _being part of the Washington elite, they will probably lose.


Interesting perspective. What type of person would you consider to be a Washington elitist or elite? Because Trump, by virtue of being a billionaire, is an American elite. He happened to play the populism angle and played it non-stop during the election. He's also been pushing that element of his cabinet out since nearly his first day in office with Bannon being the last high profile person left in his cabinet who would constitute the populist alt-right faction in his cabinet.

I agree that identity politics is repulsive to many and the people responsible for pushing that agenda are now out so that shouldn't really be a problem anymore going forward. The voting demographic shifting from baby boomers to Gen Y will also play a role, but in what capacity I'm not sure. Any ideas on that?

I think the French and German elections will be a good barometer to how much momentum the right wing populist movement has left in democratic countries. It'd be a good idea to follow those elections to get a pulse on the sentiments of voters, IMO.


----------



## Skeletalz

Scoobyscoob said:


> Hahahah, the democrats are always a mess, that hasn't really changed. :wink: It's still much too early to say but at the moment it looks doubtful he'll win a second term, if he even decides to run again. The factors that got him elected just aren't there anymore.


Ive heard it argued that hes quite narcissistic, that he seeks wealth, fame and power and Ill try to rephrase it:



> Nothing but the best will suffice. He seeked money and didnt stop at a hundred thousand a year or at a million or few in the bank, he made ridiculous amounts and got pretty much a tower of gold. He seeked fame and pretty much everyone had heard of him even before he ran for president. Why would he now break this pattern of striving for pure excellence at 70 years old and do nothing but his absolute best as president? Why would he settle for being remembered as anything but great? The last thing he wants is to go out as a failiure.


You dont end up this successful by being an idiot, so he isnt some loudmouth ******* bigot as some people may think. I think he stands a pretty good chance of staying in office for quite a long time as long as he doesnt make some ridiculous move like start another meaningless ground invasion or proxy war.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Skeletalz said:


> Ive heard it argued that hes quite narcissistic, that he seeks wealth, fame and power and Ill try to rephrase it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but the best will suffice. He seeked money and didnt stop at a hundred thousand a year or at a million or few in the bank, he made ridiculous amounts and got pretty much a tower of gold. He seeked fame and pretty much everyone had heard of him even before he ran for president. Why would he now break this pattern of striving for pure excellence at 70 years old and do nothing but his absolute best as president? Why would he settle for being remembered as anything but great? The last thing he wants is to go out as a failiure.
Click to expand...

Trump is undeniably wealthy but so far that hasn't translated into being a successful politician. The skillsets required are completely different as demonstrated by the AHCA failing to make it through Congress. The will to be successful might be there, but the skill required isn't being displayed so far.



> You dont end up this successful by being an idiot, so he isnt some loudmouth ******* bigot as some people may think. I think he stands a pretty good chance of staying in office for quite a long time as long as he doesnt make some ridiculous move like start another meaningless ground invasion or proxy war.


I've never heard him characterized as a "loudmouth ******* bigot". Rude and offensive sure, but never really as a dumb yokel. I guess we shall see what happens as it's still way too early to make any claims. It's just at the moment, I don't see him being viable anymore without the factors that were present in 2016. All of which are now gone.

If Trump doesn't really improve as President, I'm half expecting him to start a war somewhere. Presidents resort to that tactic when domestic problems prove to be too great. Obviously that would be a no-win situation in terms of what's good for Americans so I'm hoping it never comes to that, but you never know.


----------



## VagrantFarce

The elephant in the room with Trump is the Russia connection. Beyond the self-serving narcissism, beyond the childish instability & volatility, beyond the political incompetence, it's his wide-ranging conflict of interests that will take him down - and nothing would be more colourful & damning than colluding with a foreign power to undermine the democratic process of the country he now leads.

At this point, I'm convinced it isn't a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when" - there's just too much smoke to ignore. The more is revealed, and the more he embarrasses his party & his country, then the more the political will to protect him will weaken. What's more interesting to me is to consider the fallout of such an event - it would be epoch-shaking, the story of the goddamn century, and would undoubtedly reverberate throughout the entire western world. 

He's such a cartoon character, it's surreal. It's like he's living a badly-written TV serial, except he's on the one writing it. He can't help but cast himself as the bad guy who gets it in the end, but he forgot to let anyone else in on the joke. He's a pitch-black example of the Beta quadra gone wildly, wildly wrong. To watch him dig his own grave is just extraordinary, it feels simultaneously too poetic & too stupid for reality.


----------



## Gorgon

Let's just say I wouldn't be surprised if he does get impeached.

Oops I misread your post @Figure. Derped on that one.


----------



## DavidH

Interjection by Beta.

The middle class in America favors Trump.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

DavidH said:


> Interjection by Beta.
> 
> The middle class in America favors Trump.


Somewhat true but not really. The country is deeply divided among a few key demographics. Race and gender played a part in the outcome of the election but I'd consider those to be secondary factors. I think the biggest divide highlighted by the 2016 US election are the divide between the college educated and those who are not and between baby boomers and millennials (Gen Y).

So, the times, they are a changing and not in favor for the red team. Those who grew up during the Cold War will soon be eclipsed by those who grew up without the constant threat of nuclear war.


----------



## DavidH

Scoobyscoob said:


> Somewhat true but not really. The reality that people don't want to openly say is the country is deeply divided among a few key demographics. Race played a part in the outcome of the election but I think the biggest divide highlighted by the 2016 US election are the divide between the college educated and those who are not and between baby boomers and millennials (Gen Y).
> 
> The times, they are a changing and not in favor for the red team. Those who grew up during the Cold War will soon be eclipsed by those who grew up without the constant threat of nuclear war.


Divisions are always a personal choice.

People really don't care about politics. 40% don't vote. Average voter is not passionate.

Statistically, you're describing bimodal distribution. Collective emotions are always normalized distributions, not bimodal.

Most political discussions only exist under the premise that the average person doesn't exist. Political discussions exist despite the bourgeoisie ruling.

Why is Trump President? Simple. Normal folks wanted him to be president. Normal folks want what he is selling, so they bought it. Brashness and all.


----------



## DavidH

To_august said:


> You're taking it out of context.
> I was referring to forum rules, which make a distinction in terms of what is and is not allowed.


No. It's in context. You made a personal attack against the person, but you don't recognize such. Whether you or the forum rule makers recognize such, it is still a personal attack by half of individuals. Stating that the individual misread, rather than that you misspoke, is an attack, not a defense. Stating that I took something out of context, rather than you misjudging the context, is an attack. Etc. It's your placement of opinion of fault by the other individual and treated as fact, which is slanderous in nature. If you recognize such and do so anyways, cool. If you don't recognize such, you will find less headaches in the future, if you watch for the actions and reactions I've outlined here.


----------



## Figure

As a reminder, "Personal Attacks" are in fact given criteria by way of forum rule #1 : 



> 1. Do Not Make Personal Attacks
> Posts that serve no purpose other than to flame and attack other users annihilate the quality of discussion. You may critique or disdain argument and opinion posted by users, but you may not extend that method to maligning the users themselves. Do not harass or bully other members, which includes the following:
> - "type-bullying," which we define as the persistent and unsolicited public questioning of another member's type when they have not expressed such an interest.
> - purposefully misgendering other members from the identification they have chosen on their profile.
> - unsolicited and especially repeated diagnosis of other members as having a particular personality disorder or mental illness.


Please stay away from calling mistypes of individuals, regardless of whether or not they are named. If you want to discuss general patterns in a way that doesn't single people out that may be an alternative, but generally calling out unsolicited mistypes isn't a good idea. 

This isn't a public warning, just a reminder.


----------



## Asd456

Figure said:


> : Please stay away from calling mistypes of individuals, regardless of whether or not they are named.


Perhaps you should add this caveat to avoid further problems in the future.

I think it is regressive to turn a blind eye when people publish content for the public to see when the content is inaccurate. Just my 2 cents, of course.


----------



## DavidH

Asd456 said:


> Perhaps you should add this caveat to avoid further problems in the future.
> 
> I think it is regressive to turn a blind eye when people publish content for the public to see when the content is inaccurate. Just my 2 cents, of course.


That's most of the content. People self-type, regardless of objectivity. For every one part of correct information, there will be 15 parts of incorrect information.


----------



## AdrianMashka

It was quite nice to read this topic (Until some time).


----------



## Bash

So, did DavidH singel-handedly ruin the Socionics forun?


----------



## Wisteria

Bash said:


> So, did DavidH singel-handedly ruin the Socionics forun?


Why do you think that? the only thing that ruined this forum are it's members no longer being active


----------



## Bash

Wisteria said:


> Why do you think that? the only thing that ruined this forum are it's members no longer being active


Because I just revisited the forum, and his name was involved in a number of dramas in various threads. Plus, two of his threads were closed and he, himself, is banned.


----------



## Figure

Complaint about other ILI's:

Not really talking about specific ILI's on the forum - this complaint comes from real life ILI's I've met. Although I'm not always Mr. Enthusiastic either, I really have to say I understand why some people are put off by some ILI's. Our type has this implicit, "I already know everything you're telling me, stop wasting my time" attitude. It can really strongly make you not want to speak to them. Even _as _an ILI (albeit a strongly Te subtype one) this attitude makes me feel extremely uncomfortable to the point of even asking ILI's what their problem is (not something I do often). Some will disagree, but I find the Ni subtype more obnoxious in this specific respect.

I debate chalking this attitude up to Ignoring Ne (and the potential to learn something new by being open), or terrible Fe, or wacky and unstable Fi. Or a combination. Or, maybe it's just not being socially adjusted really not sure. 

There are people of our type who are just really, really, really sensitive to being given feedback or being given advice. There are ILI's I KNOW for an absolute fact who know they needed the advice too, but just act like they already knew or were fine without it because they feel like they aren't competent if they let themselves be ignorant. And secretly, they ARE extremely grateful, often with undercover inferiority complexes swirling about underneath. 

IDK. As I've gotten older I've learned that it doesn't take anything away from you to allow yourself to be bad at something, or not know without help from someone else and in fact this is an opportunity to differentiate yourself from others by learning from someone who's good at something you aren't.


----------



## DavidH

Bash said:


> Because I just revisited the forum, and his name was involved in a number of dramas in various threads. Plus, two of his threads were closed and he, himself, is banned.


The ban was for cursing out a mod after being lied about.


----------



## DavidH

@Figure That doesn't sound like ILI at all.


----------



## Warp11

I did a socionics test recently that came up with ILI, however the results also stated that I am 90% as likely to be LIE. 
Anyone else with similar results? If so, would it be possible for our consciousnesses to merge? Ok, joke, but I would like to know more about this type.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Warp10 said:


> I did a socionics test recently that came up with ILI, however the results also stated that I am 90% as likely to be LIE.
> Anyone else with similar results? If so, would it be possible for our consciousnesses to merge? Ok, joke, but I would like to know more about this type.


Test results are misleading, so if you have time I recommend to learn the theory first. Quadras too are an useful guide if you don't know where to start.


----------



## Abraxas

Man, I come back and see Figure's last post (which was spot on btw) shot down, and now he's gone.

RIP socionics sub-forum. The final watchtower has fallen at last.

Just delete it all. This place was a mistake.

Delete everything.


----------



## Kintsugi

Abraxas said:


> Man, I come back and see Figure's last post (which was spot on btw) shot down, and now he's gone.
> 
> RIP socionics sub-forum. The final watchtower has fallen at last.
> 
> Just delete it all. This place was a mistake.
> 
> Delete everything.


No!

really happy to see you again - you were one of my favourites!

Please don't go away! 

I don't really care that much about Socionics or typology. but I loved your insights!

Your random musings inspired me and made me feel less alone.

I should probably just message you.


----------



## Abraxas

Kintsugi said:


> No!
> 
> really happy to see you again - you were one of my favourites!
> 
> Please don't go away!
> 
> I don't really care that much about Socionics or typology. but I loved your insights!
> 
> Your random musings inspired me and made me feel less alone.
> 
> I should probably just message you.


Feel free. It's the best way to get a hold of me, unless you want to add me on discord.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Abraxas said:


> Man, I come back and see Figure's last post (which was spot on btw) shot down, and now he's gone.
> 
> RIP socionics sub-forum. The final watchtower has fallen at last.
> 
> Just delete it all. This place was a mistake.
> 
> Delete everything.


I also came back after a while and this looks like a wasteland tbh. Only good for cheap amusement while I'm not studying or watching anime lol but besides that it's a graveyard.


----------



## Raconteur

So I just tested ILI, which makes sense because- INTJ. 

But am I to understand that the primary functions for ILI would be Ni-Te-Si-Fe? 

I know that I'm not supposed to compare the functions to MBTI functions, right? But how does that even work? Do these functions have different definitions than MBTI? I'm sure I'm the millionth person to come in here confused, but it seems as if everywhere I turn, I can't seem to get a succinct and direct answer explaining the differences. Perhaps there isn't one?


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Raconteur said:


> So I just tested ILI, which makes sense because- INTJ.
> 
> But am I to understand that the primary functions for ILI would be Ni-Te-Si-Fe?
> 
> I know that I'm not supposed to compare the functions to MBTI functions, right? But how does that even work? Do these functions have different definitions than MBTI? I'm sure I'm the millionth person to come in here confused, but it seems as if everywhere I turn, I can't seem to get a succinct and direct answer explaining the differences. Perhaps there isn't one?


Actually Ni,Te, Fi and Se are the valued functions for ILI (Ni and Te go for ego block, Fi and Se go in the super id which is valued but you require help for using them better), while Fe and Si are the PoLR and Role functions, which definitely aren't valued and are unpleasant for ILI (Fe being the worst one). You also have Ne and Ti as ignoring and demostrative which go on the id block, which are strong but unvalued.


----------



## Raconteur

Dragheart Luard said:


> Actually Ni,Te, Fi and Se are the valued functions for ILI (Ni and Te go for ego block, Fi and Se go in the super id which is valued but you require help for using them better), while Fe and Si are the PoLR and Role functions, which definitely aren't valued and are unpleasant for ILI (Fe being the worst one). You also have Ne and Ti as ignoring and demostrative which go on the id block, which are strong but unvalued.


This helps very much. I think, to be very honest, I was skimming and confusing myself, as on the particular website I am using, they go from Leading, Creative, Role, Vulnerable and then Suggestive, Mobilizing, Ignoring, and Demonstrative. 

But if I simply look at those words, it's quite obvious they're not listed in the assumed order, lol. 

I keep striving to better understand this particular theory, as I have many friends who combine socionics type relations with MBTI designations. It drives me insane. I have an MBTI ENFJ and INTJ (who both identify with Fe-Ni-Se-Ti and Ni-Te-Fi-Se respectively) that married each other and insist that they are semi duals. Would not an ENFJ and INTp be a supervisory relationship? Normally IDGAF, but to watch these people practice this theory so wholly, obsessively, and incorrectly in their lives and push it onto the lives of others is quite obnoxious. And fascinating, I guess. I also believe that with their example, it can be easy to convince ourselves of pretty much anything regarding inner-type relationships if we really want to.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Raconteur said:


> This helps very much. I think, to be very honest, I was skimming and confusing myself, as on the particular website I am using, they go from Leading, Creative, Role, Vulnerable and then Suggestive, Mobilizing, Ignoring, and Demonstrative.
> 
> But if I simply look at those words, it's quite obvious they're not listed in the assumed order, lol.
> 
> I keep striving to better understand this particular theory, as I have many friends who combine socionics type relations with MBTI designations. It drives me insane. I have an MBTI ENFJ and INTJ (who both identify with Fe-Ni-Se-Ti and Ni-Te-Fi-Se respectively) that married each other and insist that they are semi duals. Would not an ENFJ and INTp be a supervisory relationship? Normally IDGAF, but to watch these people practice this theory so wholly, obsessively, and incorrectly in their lives and push it onto the lives of others is quite obnoxious. And fascinating, I guess. I also believe that with their example, it can be easy to convince ourselves of pretty much anything regarding inner-type relationships if we really want to.


They list the mental and vital track together, so that's why you get both dynamic (Ni,Si, Te and Fe) and static (Fi, Se, Ne and Ti) grouped together. For a static type those would be in the reverse order, having all static IEs on mental and all dynamic on vital track. Model A explains this in more detail.

Yeah, EIE supervises ILI so what they say is wrong on so many levels. EIE's semidual is actually LII, which is ILI's quasidentical. If the relationship legit fits semidual then one of them got their type wrong.


----------



## Raconteur

Dragheart Luard said:


> They list the mental and vital track together, so that's why you get both dynamic (Ni,Si, Te and Fe) and static (Fi, Se, Ne and Ti) grouped together. For a static type those would be in the reverse order, having all static IEs on mental and all dynamic on vital track. Model A explains this in more detail.
> 
> Yeah, EIE supervises ILI so what they say is wrong on so many levels. EIE's semidual is actually LII, which is ILI's quasidentical. If the relationship legit fits semidual then one of them got their type wrong.


Fascinating. It’s hard to tell based on their interaction. My husband and I speculate that she is either an mbti ISTJ or INTJ, and he is...erratic. Loud, boisterous, insecure, acts like he knows everything but knows nothing. Very opinionated and highly emotional. I’ve run across a few like him in my life and prolonged contact troubles me deeply. Almost to the point of total physical, mental, and emotional shutdown. Imagine the cartoons where the character is reduced to babbling his lips with crossed eyes. I actually wish I knew enough about socionics to identify that sort of rubbing-cat-backwards interaction. Unlike me, however, she gets along seemingly well with him. None of it seems to bother her at all. (But of course people let you see what they want you to see) So perhaps they are some form of dual or semi dual.

Btw thanks for entertaining this conversation with me. A lot of what I’m talking about has been running around my mind for a long time, and it’s nice to discuss it with someone who gets it.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Raconteur said:


> Fascinating. It’s hard to tell based on their interaction. My husband and I speculate that she is either an mbti ISTJ or INTJ, and he is...erratic. Loud, boisterous, insecure, acts like he knows everything but knows nothing. Very opinionated and highly emotional. I’ve run across a few like him in my life and prolonged contact troubles me deeply. Almost to the point of total physical, mental, and emotional shutdown. Imagine the cartoons where the character is reduced to babbling his lips with crossed eyes. I actually wish I knew enough about socionics to identify that sort of rubbing-cat-backwards interaction. Unlike me, however, she gets along seemingly well with him. None of it seems to bother her at all. (But of course people let you see what they want you to see) So perhaps they are some form of dual or semi dual.
> 
> Btw thanks for entertaining this conversation with me. A lot of what I’m talking about has been running around my mind for a long time, and it’s nice to discuss it with someone who gets it.


From what you mentioned I wonder if he could be IEE or SEE, since Te HA could lead those types to overestimate their factual knowledge. If he's not Ne or Se base, then ESE is another option since those could be erratic as well attitude wise and struggle with their Ti DS, plus they also have role Te so more attempts at factual reasoning could sometimes pop up in conversations.

No problem, is good that this talk helped to clear some doubts about socionics.


----------



## Wisteria

I think these music videos have Ni themes. Julius has a strong similarity to Dark Tranquillity, which seems Gamma. The second one makes me really uneasy. Lenore Thomson actually wrote that Ni types are likely drawn to cyberpunk in her description, although other types might enjoy it for different reasons. 










Actually know very little about static and dynamic in socionics, always seemed like a very strange concept to me. The difference in their writing styles is interesting though. I might actually look into it.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Wisteria said:


> I think these music videos have Ni themes. Julius has a strong similarity to Dark Tranquillity, which seems Gamma. The second one makes me really uneasy. Lenore Thomson actually wrote that Ni types are likely drawn to cyberpunk in her description, although other types might enjoy it for different reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually know very little about static and dynamic in socionics, always seemed like a very strange concept to me. The difference in their writing styles is interesting though. I might actually look into it.


The Julius video reminded me of Iridium drawing wise, so I can see why it reminds you of DT. Second one has a creepy melody, and personally I prefer metal to that kind of atmospheric (if you can call it as such as dunno what's the right term for it) music that has no lyrics nor many changes on melody. I like cyberpunk, but even Ergo Proxy's soundtrack sounded less robotic than the one of the second video and that anime has cyberpunk themes.


----------



## Wisteria

Dragheart Luard said:


> The Julius video reminded me of Iridium drawing wise, so I can see why it reminds you of DT. Second one has a creepy melody, and personally I prefer metal to that kind of atmospheric (if you can call it as such as dunno what's the right term for it) music that has no lyrics nor many changes on melody. I like cyberpunk, but even Ergo Proxy's soundtrack sounded less robotic than the one of the second video and that anime has cyberpunk themes.


Visually the music video reminds me of another video by Paradise Lost as well. It reminded me of DT because of the genre, how the video is composed and the concept of it. Iridium and Atoma have similar styles. 

I prefer metal as well, found that music video elsewhere on this forum and thought it also had an Ni theme. Actually realised it might a better representation of the static dichotomy rather than Ni - apparently static is like perceiving events as snapshots and dynamic is more of a continuous flow of events. I'd say that would be in the ambient music genre? (one of my friends likes ambient music a lot). 

I haven't heard any of the Ergo proxy soundtracks except for the opening song and the radiohead outro. I somewhat like cyberpunk but it's not my favourate genre, just something I occasionally like to indulge in.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Wisteria said:


> I prefer metal as well, found that music video elsewhere on this forum and thought it also had an Ni theme. Actually realised it might a better representation of the static dichotomy rather than Ni - apparently static is like perceiving events as snapshots and dynamic is more of a continuous flow of events. I'd say that would be in the ambient music genre? (one of my friends likes ambient music a lot).
> 
> I haven't heard any of the Ergo proxy soundtracks except for the opening song and the radiohead outro. I somewhat like cyberpunk but it's not my favourate genre, just something I occasionally like to indulge in.


Yeah, it gave me too a static vibe thanks to the images as there wasn't a flow between them. I found the Ergo Proxy ost (it's full but you can use the timestamps for not listening to the whole thing, since is kinda long), and listening to it I think the overall melodies aren't like the ambient song that you found:


----------



## Wisteria

Dragheart Luard said:


> Yeah, it gave me too a static vibe thanks to the images as there wasn't a flow between them. I found the Ergo Proxy ost (it's full but you can use the timestamps for not listening to the whole thing, since is kinda long), and listening to it I think the overall melodies aren't like the ambient song that you found:


The music video is probably a mix of both genres (ambient and cyberpunk). They seems to be two styles of cyberpunk as a genre and art style. One is the aesthetic, retrowave style, themed by dark nights with bright colourful lighting. The other style is more similar to Ergo Proxy as it is more dark, mechanical and futuristic. _Blame!_ is similar manga and it might be the type of cyberpunk Lenore Thomson was referring to. The story is supposed to be ambiguous and open to the readers own interpretation of the story, which is similar to how she described Ni;



> Introverted Intuition is an attitude of "seeing through" the distortion that any interpretation creates, to see the underlying reality. It's a left-brain attitude in that it's sign- and symbol-oriented: attempting to grasp the system of interpretation that makes any particular way of representing reality work, as a prerequisite for using that system. From an Ni ego-state, you want to understand the assumptions of a system of representation before you use the system, so that you can use it with true freedom--including the freedom to use the built-in interpretations in ways that violate those assumptions.


The Ergo Proxy is unique to the anime as well though, so it has it's own style.


----------



## Crystal Winter Dream

_steps in cautiously_

hi


----------



## Schizoid

Is my coworker an SEE? 

So I recently started a new job, and I met this coworker whom I get along quite well with. She is very friendly and outspoken, and she has quite a dark sense of humor.
During my first day of work, she actually joked with me, "Hey, our boss wants you to mop the floor with your tongue, you know this?"
She also likes instigating practical jokes on me, she would often smack me on my shoulder, and then she would ask me to smack her on her shoulders too. 

She also told me that she's in an open marriage, she has one husband and many boyfriends, and she's always the one who initiate break-ups with her boyfriends. 

In terms of social skills, she's quite personable and she seems to be on friendly terms with everyone. Everybody just seemed to like her, this is how personable she is. 

She would always share with me a bunch of personal stories about herself, like how she wanted to quit when she first started this job, but then she continued to persevere. And then she would always encourage me and say stuff like, "Believe in yourself. You can do it!"

My coworker also has this habit of asking me lots of personal questions. She would ask me lots of relationship questions, she wants to know who I date, how many boyfriends I had, why we broke up etc. 

She's also quite kind and helpful toward me. Whenever my boss gives me any homework, she would always secretly help me out with those homework. 

Does my coworker sound like SEE? Or which type does she sound like?

Just curious about her type because I noticed myself clicking quite well with her and I find her easy to talk to and I can definitely see myself becoming good friends with her in the near future.


----------



## clem

Schizoid said:


> Is my coworker an SEE?
> 
> So I recently started a new job, and I met this coworker whom I get along quite well with. She is very friendly and outspoken, and she has quite a dark sense of humor.
> During my first day of work, she actually joked with me, "Hey, our boss wants you to mop the floor with your tongue, you know this?"
> She also likes instigating practical jokes on me, she would often smack me on my shoulder, and then she would ask me to smack her on her shoulders too.
> 
> She also told me that she's in an open marriage, she has one husband and many boyfriends, and she's always the one who initiate break-ups with her boyfriends.
> 
> In terms of social skills, she's quite personable and she seems to be on friendly terms with everyone. Everybody just seemed to like her, this is how personable she is.
> 
> She would always share with me a bunch of personal stories about herself, like how she wanted to quit when she first started this job, but then she continued to persevere. And then she would always encourage me and say stuff like, "Believe in yourself. You can do it!"
> 
> My coworker also has this habit of asking me lots of personal questions. She would ask me lots of relationship questions, she wants to know who I date, how many boyfriends I had, why we broke up etc.
> 
> She's also quite kind and helpful toward me. Whenever my boss gives me any homework, she would always secretly help me out with those homework.
> 
> Does my coworker sound like SEE? Or which type does she sound like?
> 
> Just curious about her type because I noticed myself clicking quite well with her and I find her easy to talk to and I can definitely see myself becoming good friends with her in the near future.


Yes definitely. Especially with the smacking.


----------



## nana41

Elyasis said:


> Dreiser (ESI) and Napoleon (SEE)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jack (LIE) and Balzac (ILI)


look at ILI's expression, lol.


----------



## Wisteria

Schizoid said:


> Is my coworker an SEE?
> 
> So I recently started a new job, and I met this coworker whom I get along quite well with. She is very friendly and outspoken, and she has quite a dark sense of humor.
> During my first day of work, she actually joked with me, "Hey, our boss wants you to mop the floor with your tongue, you know this?"
> She also likes instigating practical jokes on me, she would often smack me on my shoulder, and then she would ask me to smack her on her shoulders too.
> 
> She also told me that she's in an open marriage, she has one husband and many boyfriends, and she's always the one who initiate break-ups with her boyfriends.
> 
> In terms of social skills, she's quite personable and she seems to be on friendly terms with everyone. Everybody just seemed to like her, this is how personable she is.
> 
> She would always share with me a bunch of personal stories about herself, like how she wanted to quit when she first started this job, but then she continued to persevere. And then she would always encourage me and say stuff like, "Believe in yourself. You can do it!"
> 
> My coworker also has this habit of asking me lots of personal questions. She would ask me lots of relationship questions, she wants to know who I date, how many boyfriends I had, why we broke up etc.
> 
> She's also quite kind and helpful toward me. Whenever my boss gives me any homework, she would always secretly help me out with those homework.
> 
> Does my coworker sound like SEE? Or which type does she sound like?
> 
> Just curious about her type because I noticed myself clicking quite well with her and I find her easy to talk to and I can definitely see myself becoming good friends with her in the near future.


I think you're confusing SEE with ESFP in Myers Briggs


----------



## Schizoid

Wisteria said:


> I think you're confusing SEE with ESFP in Myers Briggs


Lol if I were to type her mbti, ExTP would fit her more. 

But in terms of socionics, SEE fits her more. She is an Se base, she can be very bossy at times, she seems to have a strong love of power and likes ordering people around to do stuff, she is also a positivist, she is very open to meeting new people and she doesn't shy away from meeting new people. She also has creative Fi, she is good at creating relationships with people and people are naturally drawn to her. She's also an animal activist, she hates people who eats dog's meat. She seems to have strong likes/dislikes toward things/people, this is socionics Fi, no?
She's also an ethical type, she always likes talking about relationship stuff, I'm yet to see any logician types talking about relationship stuff all the time.


----------



## Wisteria

Schizoid said:


> Lol if I were to type her mbti, ExTP would fit her more.
> 
> But in terms of socionics, SEE fits her more. She is an Se base, she can be very bossy at times, she seems to have a strong love of power and likes ordering people around to do stuff, she is also a positivist, she is very open to meeting new people and she doesn't shy away from meeting new people. She also has creative Fi, she is good at creating relationships with people and people are naturally drawn to her. She's also an animal activist, she hates people who eats dog's meat. She seems to have strong likes/dislikes toward things/people, this is socionics Fi, no?
> She's also an ethical type, she always likes talking about relationship stuff, I'm yet to see any logician types talking about relationship stuff all the time.


So SEE because of being abrasive or very assertive? 

I can't remember what Positivist was in socionics but i'm sure it's not being sociable and extroverted. Having strong likes and dislikes isn't Fi imo, it's just being very moral and principled. 

I agree shes probably ethical, it sounds like she is but could be Fe rather than SEE. It sounds like she's very social and talks a lot, rather than putting value into other things like, you know, work maybe xD It's like the opposite of someone who is focusing on Te.


----------



## Schizoid

Wisteria said:


> So SEE because of being abrasive or very assertive?
> 
> I can't remember what Positivist was in socionics but i'm sure it's not being sociable and extroverted. Having strong likes and dislikes isn't Fi imo, it's just being very moral and principled.
> 
> I agree shes probably ethical, it sounds like she is but could be Fe rather than SEE. It sounds like she's very social and talks a lot, rather than putting value into other things like, you know, work maybe xD It's like the opposite of someone who is focusing on Te.


Yeah, SEE for her type because she's very assertive. And she's most likely the Se subtype of SEE. 

I also often find her really hilarious. Like earlier today, she was eating walnuts and she's too lazy to peel the shell out so she ended up crushing the entire walnut with her fist instead. She never ceased to amuse me, and it's usually strong Se types that made me feel this way. 

I've considered EIE for her type before but Fe doesn't make sense for her type. She doesn't interact with me the same way other Fe types do. Although we communicate well, but we also have some differences in the way we communicate, which I attribute to Fe and Fi differences. 

Being an Fi-valuing type, she values politeness and good manners a lot. Words like "thank you" and "you're welcome" tends to come naturally to her. 

I typed myself as Fe type and I don't really pay much attention to these kind of stuff. My definition of having good manners is not saying offensive stuff to people, but her definition of good manners is so different from mine.
Like there was one time when she said "thank you" to me, and I didn't reply back with "you're welcome", and she started jokingly telling me that I'm supposed to say "you're welcome" back to her when she said "thank you" to me.

This is Fe-Fi differences in communication style, no? 

Regarding positivist vs negativist, I remembered reading from somewhere before that positivist types tend to be more trusting of people and they also prefer focusing on the positive traits of people, while negativist types tend to be more untrusting of people and they are often more aware of people's shortcomings.

My coworker is a positivist type, she is often giving me compliments like, "You're so cute! The more I get to know you, the more I find you cute."
She is always quick to look for my positive traits, rather than my negative traits. 

Also, I believe she is Te valuing as she has a workaholic side to her. She is usually quite laidback and likes joking around a lot, but when she works hard, she can really become a full-on workaholic. She is always giving me advice on how to improve my work, this is Te, right?

The more I interact with her, the more she strikes me as my semi-dual. I've only been at my new job for two weeks and we get along so well with each other we would often chit-chat with each other and joke around with each other all the time. And the strange thing is, we always have something to talk about, we never seemed to run out of topics to talk about, and I'm usually a very reserved person irl and I don't really speak much so it's rare for me to be chatty around someone.


----------



## Wisteria

Schizoid said:


> I've considered EIE for her type before but Fe doesn't make sense for her type. She doesn't interact with me the same way other Fe types do. Although we communicate well, but we also have some differences in the way we communicate, which I attribute to Fe and Fi differences.
> 
> Being an Fi-valuing type, she values politeness and good manners a lot. Words like "thank you" and "you're welcome" tends to come naturally to her.


That's MBTI Fi/Fe though, not socionics... 



> Regarding positivist vs negativist, I remembered reading from somewhere before that positivist types tend to be more trusting of people and they also prefer focusing on the positive traits of people, while negativist types tend to be more untrusting of people and they are often more aware of people's shortcomings.


This isn't type related, it's just about who you are as a person. People can be trusting/not trusting of people for a lot of reasons, and it's usually related to upbringing and personal experience. 



> My coworker is a positivist type, she is often giving me compliments like, "You're so cute! The more I get to know you, the more I find you cute."
> She is always quick to look for my positive traits, rather than my negative traits.


It's just being a nice person I guess?



> Also, I believe she is Te valuing as she has a workaholic side to her. She is usually quite laidback and likes joking around a lot, but when she works hard, she can really become a full-on workaholic. She is always giving me advice on how to improve my work, this is Te, right?


Depends on what kind of advice, that's a little vague. Idk what type of work you do either.



> The more I interact with her, the more she strikes me as my semi-dual. I've only been at my new job for two weeks and we get along so well with each other we would often chit-chat with each other and joke around with each other all the time. And the strange thing is, we always have something to talk about, we never seemed to run out of topics to talk about, and I'm usually a very reserved person irl and I don't really speak much so it's rare for me to be chatty around someone.


I agree it's probably a positive ITR.


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Socionics is bunk I say, as I post this in the Socionics subforum. :tongue:


----------



## Icetrik

what is sociionic?


----------



## Scoobyscoob

Hm. Still bunk, I'd say. :happy:


----------



## intranst

Do you NTJs (MBTI terms) find yourself more compatible with SFPs or NFPs, or perhaps other NTJs? Just wondering since this is a Socionics thread, if duality is still thought of as ideal.


----------



## intranst

.


----------

